Om Rahul Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9369 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Om Rahul Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others on 17 April, 2025

Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56827-DB
 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 272 of 2025
 

 
Appellant :- Om Rahul Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Tripathi,Rahul Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

1. Heard Sri Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. The cause raised in all the petitions were similar and, therefore, the writ petitions have been decided by a composite judgment.

3. The 21 petitioners have filed Writ Petition No.2656 of 2025 challenging the Government policy contained in Government Order dated 6.2.2025 as well as various other Government Orders. The primary challenge is laid to sub-clause(8) of Clause-3 of the Government Order dated 6th February, 2025, which is reproduced herein after:

" (8) "?? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ????????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ??, ????? ?? ???????? ????? ??????, ????????? ?? ????? ?? ???????????, ???????? ?????, ????? ????????, ???????? ???????? ??? ?????????? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ?????????? ?????? ?? ????????? ?? ?????

???? ???????? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ?????????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???????? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ????????? ????? ??? ?????????? ?????????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???, ????? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????"

4. In substance, the policy dis-entitles teachers, who have already worked as Academic Resource Person (herein after referred to as 'ARP') to be considered for fresh engagement for a period of three years. The reason for such policy is that ARP are assigned leadership role as they are to assist the teachers in their respective zones to function in such a manner that the quality of education improves and the object of national education policy is sub-served. The policy itself is to implement the fundamental right introduced under Article-21-A of the Constitution of India as well as to enforce the provisions of the Right to Education Act. Various Government Orders have been issued from time to time to achieve such objectives. The basic policy for our purposes is contained in Government Order dated 22nd October, 2019, whereby staff in Samagra Siksha Abhiyan at Nyay Panchayat and Block level have been reformulated.

5. It transpires that teachers were earlier engaged as co-cordinators at the Block and Nyay Panchayat level, which engagement has been modified by Government Order dated 22nd October, 2019. As per the revised scheme, following arrangement is made.

"???? ???????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? 06 ??????? ??????? ?????? (Academic Reource Person) (ARP) ?????? ?????? ?? 05 Academic Reource Persons (ARP) ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????????? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? Academic Reource Person (ARP) ?? ???? ?????? ??? 821 ????????? ???? 4105 ??? 59 ??? ?????? ??????? ???? 295 ???????? Academic Reource Person (ARP) ?? ???????? ????? ????????? ?? ?? Academic Reource Person (ARP) ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? 06 Academic Reource Persons (ARP) ??? ?? 05 ?? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? 01 ???? ????? ???? Academic Reource Person (ARP) ?? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? Academic Reource Person (ARP) ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? Academic Reource Group (ARG) ????????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ????????/?????????? ?? ?????????? ?????????? (Supportive Supervision) ???? ????? ????? ????? "

6. The objective of the policy is further stipulated in sub-clause-(8) of Clause 1 of Government Order dated 22.10.2019, which is reproduced herein after:

"8- ??????? ?????? ???? Academic Reource Group (ARG) ?? ??????? ?? ??? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???????"

7. The manner and methodology of engaging ARP has been specified in the Government Order of 2019. It is in furtherance of this policy that subsequent Government Orders have been issued from time to time. Sub-clause(8) of clause-3 of the Government Order dated 6th February, 2025 is in furtherance of the above policy and prescribes that the ARP is to indulge in the work of mentoring to the teachers so that the ultimate policy objective is achieved. The policy further stipulates that the quality of education can be improved only if the task of mentoring is extended to larger number of teachers.

8. By virtue of aforesaid policy, teachers, who have already worked for three years as ARP, are made ineligible to apply when fresh engagement is to be offered in the project. To this extent, the appellant is aggrieved.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the provision contained in the aforesaid clause does not sub-serve any of the policy objective and, therefore, exclusion of existing ARP from fresh engagement is wholly arbitrary.

10. Learned Single Judge has taken note of the policy objective and the provisions and has found that the policy is fair and reasonable and has a definite purpose to sub-serve and consequently, no interference in it is warranted. Learned Single Judge has also noticed that the teachers, who are assigned the work of ARP, do not get any right to continue in the scheme and since they have been excluded from fresh consideration with the object of extending the experience available to an ARP to greater number of teachers as such no interference would be warranted in writ.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance upon a decision of Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. Dr.Rao VBJ Chelikani and others as well as Division Bench judgment of this Court in Daya Ram Saroj and another vs. State of UP and others, 2006 (1) SCC Online (All) 2288 to contend that reasonableness of the policy, existence of its rationale etc. are amenable to writ jurisdiction.

12. The petition is opposed by learned State Counsel.

13. So far as the amenability of Government policy to judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned, the law is well-settled. The Government policy contained in the Governemnt Order is open to judicial scrutiny on the permissible grounds. If it is shown that the policy is wholly arbitrary or suffers from manifest illegality, it may be interfered in writ proceedings. It is equally settled that the discretion available with the State to formulate the policy for securing valid objectives ordinarily would not be interfered with, unless it is shown to be violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, a writ petition would be maintainable for challenging the policy, but such writ can succeed only if the petitioner can demonstrate that the policy is manifestly arbitrary or sub-serves no valid purpose or is violative of Constitution/Statute etc.

14. It has thus to be seen as to whether the policy violates any of the fundamental rights or provisions of an applicable statute. In the facts of the present case, appellant has not been able to demonstrate that any of the rights available to a teacher is violated only because he is not allowed to participate in the selection for appointment of ARP. The status of the teacher and his right to receive salary etc. remains unaffected by his non-engagement as ARP. The substantive appointment of the appellant is on the post of a teacher. His right to function as teacher and to receive salary is adequately protected. Whether the teacher is required to be reengaged in the project for a longer period is essentially a matter of discretion of the employer to be exercised based on a prudent policy.

15. In the facts of the case, we find that policy objectives are clearly outlined in the Government Order as per which the object of extending quality education would be greatly sub-served, if larger number of teachers are assigned the responsibility of functioning as ARP. This can be done only if the teachers already engaged as ARP are not repeated so that more number of teachers are assigned such responsibility.

16. Paragraph-8 of the Government policy otherwise is not shown to be inconsistent with any statutory provision nor is shown to be violating any provisions of the Constitution. There is a definite objective to be sub-served in the policy formulated by the State.

17. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly refused to interfere in the writ filed by the appellant questioning the policy in question.

18. Appeal, consequently, lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 17.4.2025/LN Tripathi