Allahabad High Court
Shiv Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 16 August, 2021
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10208 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shiv Singh And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar (Chandraul)
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Harsh Vardhan Gupta
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for parties.
The petitioners who are Assistant Teachers challenge the validity of an order issued by the third respondent placing them as part of a larger exercise of correcting and revising the electoral roll. The petitioners contend that since they are teachers in primary educational institutions, they cannot be deployed for carrying out the aforesaid task.
The submission is clearly misconceived bearing in mind the provisions made in Section 27 of the Right to Education Act, 2009. Dealing with the ambit of that provision, a learned judge of the Court in Mansoora Ali Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others [Writ -A No. - 21662 of 2018, decided on 08 October 2018] noticed the legal position in the following terms:
"4. For ready reference, the provision of Section 27 of the Act is quoted herein below:
"27. Prohibition of deployment of teachers for non-educational purposes- 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 the State Legislatures or Parliament, as the case may be."
5. It is submitted that the preparation, revision and rectification of the electoral roll is not a duty or work exempted from the purview of Section 27 of the Act. It is thus submitted that the direction requiring the petitioners' institution to make available the service of the petitioner to function as Booth Level Officers, is contrary to law.
6. The prayer made in the writ petition has been opposed on the ground that insofar as it is admitted that the petitioner has not been required to discharge duties outside his teaching hours, there is no violation of Section 27 of the Act, to that extent. This position is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Insofar as it has been submitted that the assignment of duty of Booth Level Officer is contrary to Section 27 of the Act, the words used in Section 27 of the Act are wide enough to allow for assignment of duty of Booth Level Officer inasmuch as the phrase "duties relating to elections" would include each and every duty or work that may be required to be performed for the purpose of conducting a free and fair election.
8. There is no suggestion in the words used by the legislature to confine the meaning of the aforesaid phrase to polling duties alone or to any other part of the election such as may exclude the work of preparation, revision and rectification of the electoral roll.
9. In any case, the preparation, revision and rectification of the electoral roll is inherent and inseparable frame to the conduct of a free and fair election. The same can never be excluded from the duty relating to elections.
10. Also, a division bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 36449 of 2016, has been disposed of the same with the following observation:
"Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Election Commission of India Vs. St. Mary's School & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 390 and particularly paragraph 33 thereof, and submitted that in view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, this writ petition may be disposed of in terms thereof. Paragraph 33 reads thus:
"33. We would, however, notice that the Election Commission before us also categorically stated that as far as possible teachers would be put on electoral roll revision works on holidays, non-teaching days and non-teaching hours; whereas non-teaching staff be put on duty any time. We, therefore, direct that all teaching staff shall be put on the duties of roll revisions and election works on holidays and non-teaching days. Teachers should not ordinarily be put on duty on teaching days and within teaching hours. Non-teaching staff, however, may be put on such duties on any day or at any time, if permissible in law."
Learned counsel for the respondents submit that they shall put the teaching staff on duty on non-teaching days and within non-teaching hours, as observed by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned paragraph. Their submission is recorded and accepted.
In view thereof, nothing further survives in the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of."
11. In view of the above, present petition is disposed of on the same terms as are contained in the decision of the division bench."
In view of the aforesaid, the challenge to the impugned order fails. The respondents shall ensure that the assignment of duties to the petitioners here is in accordance with the observations made by the Supreme Court in St. Mary's School.
Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ petition shall stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021
Arun K. Singh
