Allahabad High Court
Sarvesh Kushwaha vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 30 May, 2018
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 16241 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kushwaha
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Verma,Pankaj Kumar Dixit
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajiv Singh Chauhan
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Ashish Verma, learned counsel for petitioner.
Notices on behalf of opposite-party nos. 1, 2 & 5 have been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel, while notices on behalf of opposite-party nos.3 & 4 have been accepted by Sri Rajiv Singh Chauhan, learned counsel.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to implead the Election Commission of India through its Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi as opposite party no.6 and the copy of the writ petition shall be provided to the counsel for respondent no.6, within 2 working days.
The petitioner is Assistant Teacher in Basic School under the Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent has served an order thereby requisitioning the services of the petitioner as Booth Level Officer for revision of voter-lists.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that such requisition is illegal and is in the teeth of the provisions of section 27 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, 2009 which provides that no teacher shall be deployed for any non-educational purposes other than the decennial population census, disaster relief duties or duties relating to elections to the local authority, or to the State legislatures or Parliament, as the case may be. It has been submitted that the revision of the voter-list does not fall in any of those categories because that does not relate to decennial population census and as the elections have not yet been notified, therefore, the deployment, as directed, is illegal and is in the teeth of the provisions of Section 27 of the RTE Act, 2009. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has also been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sunita Sharma v. State of U.P. and others : 2015 (3) ESC 1289 (All) (DB).
The matter requires consideration.
Learned counsel(s) for respondents pray for and are allowed three weeks time to file their respective counter affidavits. One week, thereafter, shall be for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.
List this case on 10.07.2018 as fresh along with Writ Petition No.l5635 (S/S) of 2018.
In the meantime, the petitioner shall not be forced to perform duties as a Booth Level Officer.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018
Suresh/
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
