IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH MATHUR, J.
Pushkar Singh Chandel and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) Nos. 5232, 5475, 5494, 5561, 5577, 5578, 5644, 5764, 5797, 5914, 6112, 6152, 6238, 6420, 6728, 7498, 7829, 7927, 8063, 8177, 8544 of 2024
Decided On : 06-11-2024
(A) Right to Education Act, 2009 - Sections 19 and 25 - U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 - Sections 13, 13(A), and 19 - U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 - Rule 21 - Government Order dated 26.06.2024 and Circular dated 28.06.2024 challenged - Clauses prescribing 'last in first out' for teacher transfers found arbitrary and violative of statutory provisions - Inclusion of Shiksha Mitra in determining pupil-teacher ratio deemed illegal - Clauses quashed. (Paras 5, 21, 60, 72)
(B) Judicial Review - Executive orders cannot supplant statutory provisions - Classification must adhere to Article 14 standards of intelligible differentia and rational relation to legislative objectives. (Paras 48, 56)
(C) Precedent - Previous judgments on similar issues must be adhered to unless validated by legislature - Judicial discipline requires following established rulings. (Paras 66, 68)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged government orders affecting teacher transfers based on pupil-teacher ratios, arguing violations of statutory provisions and previous court rulings.
Findings of Court:
Clauses 3, 7, 8, and 9 of the government order were quashed for being arbitrary and inconsistent with statutory requirements.
Issues: Whether the government order's clauses violated statutory provisions and previous judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the 'last in first out' principle arbitrary and not supported by law, emphasizing that executive orders must align with statutory provisions.
Result: Writ petitions allowed, and the impugned clauses quashed.
JUDGMENT :
MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Mr. H.G.S. Parihar learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Minakshi Parihar Singh, Mr. Sudeep Seth learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Onkar Singh, Mr. Upendra Nath Misra learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ramesh Kumar Dwivedi and Mr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi learned counsel assisted by Mr. Mridul Bhatt, Mr. Uirech Pandey and Mr. Sharda Mohan Tiwari learned counsel for petitioners and other learned counsels for petitioners in connected writ petitions, learned State Counsel and Mr. Ranvijay Singh learned counsel for U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj as well as Mr. Anuj Mishra, Mr. Pradeep Tiwari, Mr. Ravi Prakash Yadav, Mr. Rishabh Tripathi and Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh learned counsel for opposite parties.
2. Since a common cause of action has been agitated in all the writ petitions, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment.
3. In writ A No. 5232 of 2024 this Court vide order dated 23.08.2024 had granted liberty to opposite parties to file a composite counter affidavit instead of separate counter affidavits so that the matter may be decided finally. In pursuance thereof, counter affidavit was filed on behalf of State and vide order dated 29.08.2024, statement of learned State Counsel that a composite counter affidavit has been filed only on legal issues and not factual ones, which was adopted for all the connected writ petitions was recorded. Rejoinder affidavit to the same has also been filed.
4. Petitions have been filed challenging Clauses 3,7, 8 and 9 of the government order dated 26.06.2024 as well as similar clauses indicated in the circular dated 28.06.2024 issued by the Basic Education Board.
5. The aforesaid government order and circular have been issued purportedly in terms of Right to Education Act 2009 and the rules framed by the State Government in 2011 thereunder whereby proceedings have been initiated for fulfilment of the pupil-teacher ratio in accordance with the schedule prescribed under sections 19 and 25 of the Act of 2009.
6. Clause 3 of the government order, loosely translated prescribes that for the academic Session 2023-24 and as per the student strength as on 31.03.2024, teachers are required to be shifted from such schools where they are surplus as per the bench mark of the pupil-teacher ratio to schools where such bench mark remains unfulfilled. It also indicates that such shifting would be on the basis of length of service of a teacher in a particular district.
7. Clause 7 of the government order provides that such shifting of teachers would be effected by transferring teachers on the basis of their length of service in a particular district as per their date of appointment under the principle of last come first go whereby the junior most teacher would be shifted out first.
8. Clause 8 of the government order indicates by and large the same factor of last come first out principle but also requires the bench mark to be determined by taking into the account the number of Shikshsa Mitra/Contractual Teachers available in a school.
9. Clause 9 of the government order prescribes that such inter district transfer will be in terms of the U.P. Basic Education Teachers Service Regulations 1981 as well as notifications dated 2010 and 2014 issued by the National Teachers Education Board and also provides such transfers to take place on the basis of last come first out.
10. It is relevant to indicate that all the petitioners are employed in basic schools and are governed by provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Act 1972. Section 13 of the Act of 1972 indicates that the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education constituted under section 3 thereof (hereinafter referred to as Board) would carry out such directions as are issued to it from time to time by State Government for efficient administration of the Act. It primarily prescribes control of the State Government over the board. Section 13(A) gives an overriding effect of the Act of 1972 over and above the U.P. Panchaya
Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality
Govt. of Karnataka v. Gowramma
Hari Singh v. Military Estate Officer
Indian Aluminium Co. v. State of Kerala
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another
M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P. (1997)7 SCC 592
Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India
MCD v. Gurnam Kaur (1989) 1 SCC 101
Meerut Development Authority v. Satbir Singh
Pandit M.S.M. Sharma vs. Dr. Shri Krishan Sinha and others
Ram Singh Vijay Pal Singh v. State of U.P. (2007) 6 SCC 44
Ramesh Chandra Sharma and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others
Senior Superintendent of Post Office vs. Izhar Hussain
Shayara Bano v. Union of India
State of Haryana v. Dharam Singh (2009) 4 SCC 340
State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties
State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and Another
State of Uttranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 794
U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh and Ors. vs. Daya Ram Saroj & Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 138
Union of India vs. Alphinstone Shipping and Weaving Company Limited
Villianur lyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India
Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa and others
Association for Democratic Reforms and Another (Electoral Bond Scheme) vs. Union of India and Others
The court ruled that the 'last in first out' principle for teacher transfers is arbitrary and violates statutory provisions, emphasizing that executive orders must align with established laws.
The court upheld the Government Order on teacher redeployment under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, prioritizing statutory compliance and educational needs over indi....
The requirement of the subject should have precedence in transferring teachers from unaided to aided school. Seniority should only be considered when there are multiple teachers in the subject in whi....
The G.R. on teacher transfers aligns with the RTE Act by maintaining Pupil-Teacher ratios and does not violate statutory rights of teachers.
Transfer policy guidelines do not confer legally enforceable rights unless there is a violation of statutory rules or mala fide.
The court upheld the principle that mid-session teacher transfers adversely affect students' education, emphasizing the need for stability in educational settings.
Point of Law : Executive action to escape wrath of Art. 14 has to be fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory, transparent, non-capricious, unbiased, without favouritism, in pursuit of appointment and eq....
The court established that the State has the authority to set educational qualifications for teachers and that the writ court cannot alter policy decisions unless they are found to be arbitrary or un....
Selection as Shiksha Mitra does not confer automatic right to appointment post a government ban on appointments, reaffirming the role of state policy in employment matters.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.