Dr. Sandeep Shukla And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9998 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Dr. Sandeep Shukla And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 1 September, 2025

Author: Abdul Moin

Bench: Abdul Moin

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:51753
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
WRIT - A No. - 9925 of 2025   
 
   Dr. Sandeep Shukla And 3 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Edication Lko. And 6 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Raghvendra P. Singh, Mohd. Sheraj   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C., Aakash Singh, Prashant Kumar Singh   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 4
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.      

1.Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record. Guidelines issued by the State Election Commission dated March, 2025 passed on by Sri Akash Singh are also taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Piyush Kishore, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 and 4, Sri Akash Singh, learned counsel for respondents no.2, 3 and 7, and Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents no.5 and 6.

3. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties the matter is being decided finally.

4. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by respondent no.3 whereby they have been appointed on election duty.

5. The petitioners no.1 to 3 are also aggrieved by the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by respondent no.5 whereby the Block Education Officer has sent a recommendation to the District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi i.e. respondent no.5 for granting approval for withholding of one increment of petitioners no.1 to 3.

6. The same has been passed in pursuance of the oral directions issued by the Chief Development Officer, Hardoi.

7. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the all the petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers and they have been assigned election duty as Booth Level Officer (for short 'BLO') vide order impugned dated 04.06.2025 which assignment of duty is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Surya Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and other - 2025:AHC:19804 as well as Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Nirbhay Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ-A No.26204 of 2021 decided on 11.08.2022.

8. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that this Court in the case of Surya Pratap Singh (supra), after considering the Division Bench judgment in the case of Nirbhay Singh (supra) as well as the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India, has held that in case other categories of staff mentioned in election guidelines are available, teachers shall not be deployed on election duties or appointed as BLO. The exercise for finding out the same and pertaining to refixing the deployment of teachers as BLO or other election duties was directed to be completed within a period of three months and till such exercise was carried out, the concerned teachers would have to discharge the electoral duties as contemplated in the list of BLO. It was further provided that the petitioner (who was an Assistant Teacher) shall perform the electoral duties on holidays and after teaching hours till fresh orders in compliance of directions of the writ Court were issued. It is also contended that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nirbhay Singh (supra) has also held that the teachers cannot be deployed during teaching days or teaching hours but can be deployed on non-teaching days and during non-teaching hours.

9. It is also contended that although the judgment of Surya Pratap Singh (supra) dealt with the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India yet now State Election Commission has also issued the guidelines in March, 2025 of which Clause 3 of the guidelines specifically provides for assignment of duty as a BLO to the Junior Basic School Teachers and Shiksha Mitras after assignment of duty to the Lekhpal.

10. The contention is that once this Court in the case of Surya Pratap Singh (supra) has already directed the respondent authorities to deploy teachers as BLO only after carrying out an exercise in terms of the guidelines as issued by the Election Commission of India consequently appropriate directions be also issued to the State Election Commission to only assign duties to the Assistant Teachers as per Clause 3.1 of the guidelines issued by the State Election Commission.

11. The further argument is that the order impugned dated 18.08.2025 whereby the Block Education Officer has been approved withholding of one increment of the petitioners no.1 to 3 which approval itself has been issued on the basis of the oral directions issued by the Chief Development Officer and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari having proceeded to issue a charge sheet is an exercise reflecting patent non-application of mind inasmuch as once the competent authority i.e. Basic Shiksha Adhikari has himself not applied his own mind while issuing the charge sheet as have been annexed in the supplementary affidavit as such the entire action merits to be set-aside.

12. Responding learned Standing Counsel states that as despite the petitioners being assigned duty as BLO vide order dated 04.06.2025 they failed to carry out the duties, consequently the Chief Development Officer had passed an oral order for proceeding against the petitioners and as such there is no infirmity in the same.

13. On the other hand Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for Basic Shiksha Adhikari, has argued that the charge sheet has been issued to the petitioners considering the approval order impugned dated 18.08.2025 which in turn had been passed on the basis of directions issued by the Chief Development Officer.

14. Sri Akash Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission, also argues that as duty had been assigned to the petitioners vide order dated 04.06.2025 as such they were required to discharge their duties as BLO but the exercise as has been directed by this Court in the case of Surya Pratap Singh (supra) which considering the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India may be directed to be carried out by the State Election Commission also.

15. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

16. From the arguments as raised by the learned counsels for the contesting parties and perusal of records, it emerges that the petitioners had been assigned duty as BLO vide order dated 04.06.2025. As they failed to do the assigned work as BLO consequently the order impugned dated 18.08.2025 was passed by the Block Education Officer recommending to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari for imposition of a major penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.

17. In pursuance thereof the petitioners no.1 to 3 have been issued a charge sheet and have been required to submit reply within three days.

18. Once the charge sheet is being issued for by the competent authority but in pursuance to the recommendation being made by the Block Education Officer dated 18.08.2025 which recommendation in turn has been made on the basis of oral directions issued by the Chief Development Officer dated 18.08.2025 as emerges from the said order itself consequently any proceedings which are initiated against the petitioners no.1 to 3 on the basis of the same would be patently vitiated in the eyes of law considering that the competent authority i.e. Basic Shiksha Adhikari Hardoi has failed to apply his independent mind rather is proceeding at the dictates of the Block Education Officer and the Chief Development Officer.

19. Even otherwise, the competent authority to pass an order against the petitioners is the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and consequently the order impugned dated 18.08.2025 cannot be said to be in accordance with law and thus merits to be quashed and is accordingly quashed so far as it pertains to petitioners no.1 to 3.

20. So far as assignment of election duty is concerned, this Court in the case of Surya Pratap Singh (supra) after considering the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India (pertaining to assignment of election duty to the teachers) has held as under:-

?32. The State authorities cannot lightly or in a perfunctory manner encroach upon the free time of teachers. Unless other options have been fully explored and exercised, teachers are not liable to be detracted from their periods of self reflection or distracted from their endeavours at self education made in free time.

33. Many would believe that a teacher teaches in duty hours and learns during leisure time. In fact learning is a facet of teaching and teaching is a manifestation of learning. Both processes are two sides of one coin. Learning and teaching go hand in hand and always reinforce each other to replenish the reservoir of human knowledge, and foster the evolution of a more perfect human race. The master in the art of teaching makes no distinction between duty hours and leisure time. True teachers simply pursue their vision of excellence in education and their quest to mould minds and enlighten lives; leaving it for others to decide whether they are at work or at leisure and whether they are learning or teaching.

34. The summits of human achievements and the advancing strides of human civilization are an ode to the scholarly and spiritual strivings of teachers.

35. Bereft of free time and sans holidays quality of teaching will become stagnant and standards of education will decline.

36. The observations made by the learned Division Bench in Sunita Sharma (supra) regarding the judicious use of time by teachers after they are free from school duties also aligns with the narrative.

(d) Election Guideline No. 1.5d

Minimal Appointment of Teachers: Interpretations and Conclusion

37. Benefiting from the constitutional law discourse which underscores the role of teachers in the society, the Election Commission of India imposed certain conditionalities on appointment of teachers as Booth Level Officers. The said limitations provided in guideline No. 1.5d are extracted herein under:-

"1.5 ..?

d. Teachers shall be drafted minimally as Booth Level Officers. However, where necessary they should be drafted for Booth Level Officer work during holidays and during non-teaching hours and non-teaching days so as to avoid any loss of academic work. It must be ensured that no teacher of a single teacher school is deployed for this purpose."

(emphasis supplied)

38. The said Election Commission guideline No. 1.5d by restricting the appointment of teachers seeks to balance the competing imperatives of the Right to Education, the indispensable role of teachers in the society, and the necessity of electoral work in a democracy. The aforesaid restrictions in Election Commission guidelines have to be interpreted in the backdrop of the importance of education in our country, the role of teachers in our Constitutional scheme, and that elections are the life blood of any democracy.

39. By issuing the restrictive directive of ??minimal appointment of teachers? on election duties the Election Commission has ensured that the electoral process does not impose onerous demands on the educational system. In the wake of the preceding discussion Guideline No. 1.5d clearly mandates that teachers will be employed on election duties only after all other categories of employees mentioned in the Election Guideline No. 1.5d have been exhausted. In other words the appointment of Booth Level Officers or assignment of election duties shall be first made from the pool of all categories of employees depicted in the Election Guidelines No. 1.2 except for teachers. There may be occasions when even after appointment of all other categories of employees (apart from teachers) vacancies of Booth Level Officers are not filled and there is need for additional hands. In that situation alone teachers can be appointed as Booth Level Officers and assigned election duties. Engagement of teachers on election duties shall always be a measure of last resort, and only after all other options in Election Guidelines No. 1.2 and 1.5d have been exercised.

H. Final Directions:

40. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to refix the deployment of teachers as Booth Level Officers or on other election duties in light of the above interpretation of Election Commission Guideline No. 1.5d read with Election Commission Guideline No. 1.2. In case other categories of staff mentioned in Election Guideline No. 1.2 are available, teachers shall not be deployed on election duties or appointed as Booth Level Officers. The exercise shall be completed within a period of three months.

41. However, till such exercise is carried out the concerned teachers will have to discharge their electoral duties as contemplated in the impugned list of BLO dated 16.08.2024 passed by the respondent No. 7 i.e. District Magistrate/District Electoral Registration Officer, Jhansi. The petitioner shall perform the electoral duties on holidays and after teaching hours till fresh orders in compliance of directions in this writ petition. The impugned order/list shall however abide by the fresh orders to be passed by the respondent No. 7 pursuant to the above directions.

42. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of."

21. From perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case of Surya Pratap Singh (supra) it emerges that this Court has at length considered the duties of the teachers and the teaching work consuming intellectual capital and drawing on the emotional reservoir of teachers. The quality of teachers has also been considered by this Court and after considering the election commission guidelines wherein teachers were to be assigned duty as BLO this Court has directed the authorities to re-fix the deployment of teachers as BLO or on other election duties in the light of the interpretation given by this Court pertaining to the election commission guidelines no.1.5d read with election commission guidelines no.1.2. It was also provided that in case other categories of staff mentioned in election guidelines are available the teachers shall not be deployed in the election duties or appointed as BLO. The exercise was directed to be completed within a period of three months but till such time the exercise was carried out, the concerned teachers were required to discharge the electoral duties as contemplated in the list of BLOs but the duties were to be assigned only on holidays and after teaching hours till fresh orders were issued in compliance of the directions issued by the writ Court.

22. Incidentally in the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India for assignment of duty as BLO the teachers stood at serial no.1.

23.In the guidelines which have been issued by the State Election Commission in March, 2025 Chapter III pertains to the assignment of duties to the personnel of which Clause 3.1 pertains to the appointment of the BLO which on reproduction reads as under:-

"3.1 ??? ???? ????? (????????) ?? ?????????-

????? ????????? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ?????????? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ???-

(1) ??????

(2) ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ???????, ?????? ?????

(3) ???? ?????? ????????

(4) ?????? ????? ?? ????????????? ????????? ????????/??????/??????? ?? ??????? ????????

(5) ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????

(6) ???????? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????????? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ????? ???? ????? ????"

24. From a perusal of the aforesaid guidelines it emerges that the Junior Basic Schools Teachers and Shiksha Mitras have been placed at serial no.2 for being assigned election duties vis-a-vis the election duty assigned by the Election Commission of India wherein the teachers were placed at serial no.1 in clause 1.2 of ECI guidelines.

25. Thus, clearly the principle of law as laid down by this Court in the case of Surya Pratap Singh (supra) would be applicable wherein this Court after considering the onerous duties of the teachers on account of their teaching assignments has held that in case other staffs mentioned in election guidelines are available then the teachers shall not be deployed in the election duties.

26. In the instant case considering clause 3.1 of the guidelines issued by the State Election Commission which have been reiterated while issuing the guidelines dated 11.07.2025 as asserted by the learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission, this Court finds it expedient to direct the respondents to re-fix the deployment of teachers as BLOs or on other elections duties considering paragraphs 37 to 39 of the judgment of Surya Pratap Singh (supra) as extracted above. In case other categories of staff as mentioned in clause 3.1 of the State Election Commission guidelines are available, then the teachers shall not be deployed in election duties or appointed as BLOs.

27. Let an exercise in this regard be carried out within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

28. Till the exercise is carried out, as directed above, the petitioners will discharge the electoral duties as assigned to them in terms of the order dated 04.06.2025 but the petitioners shall only perform the electoral duties on holidays and after teaching hours till fresh orders in compliance of the directions of this order are issued.

29. It is also provided that in case any of the petitioners have got an individual grievance it would be open for them to approach the District Electoral Officer for redressal of their grievance which would be considered in accordance with law. However, mere submission of their grievance before the District Electoral Officer will not discharge them from their duty as BLO/electoral duties.

30. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

(Abdul Moin,J.)

September 1, 2025

A. Katiyar