Suneel Kumar vs State Of U.P.And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 4814 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 30
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51907 of 2012
 
Petitioner :- Suneel Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Neeraj Tiwari
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
 
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Learned standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Sri  Sanjay Kumar Srivastava has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Each one of the respondents is accorded six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within next two weeks.

List thereafter.

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is an assistant teacher and had been assigned duty of getting completed the construction of new building for  the school. Petitioner submits that as on date after enforcement of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, under Section 27 thereof, no teacher is to be deployed for any non-educational purpose other than the decennial  population census, disaster relief duties or duties relating to elections to the local authority or the State Legislatures or Parliament, as the case may be.  Petitioner submits that in the light of the aforementioned provisions, the State Government has issued Notification on 06.07.2012 and therein has also proceeded to mention that  Head master or assistant teacher  should be kept free from construction activities of school building. Petitioner submits that once such is the factual situation, and he was not prepared to carry out the constructions activities, then by no stretch of imagination for non-carrying of such constriction activities, the petitioner could not have been placed under suspension. Petitioner has stated that in identical circumstances in writ petition No.1901 of 2012, Pradeep Kumar Pandey and others vs. State of U.P. and others,  and  writ petition No.1083 of 2012, Suraj Prasad and others vs. State of U.P. and others, this Court has proceeded to disapprove such actions on the part of the respondents.

Prima facie, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner appears to have substance and the same requires consideration by this Court. Consequently till the next date of listing operation of the order dated 14.09.2012 is directed to be kept in abeyance.

It is clarified that as  school building has necessarily to be constructed, and  accordingly, construction of the school building be got constructed by the  District Basic Education Officer, Etah and the District Coordinator (Construction) appointed under Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan or any other arrangement be made.

Order Date :- 5.10.2012

SRY