Nirupam Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6032 MP

                                  1                                 WA-860-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                    WA-860-2021
          (NIRUPAM TRIPATHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


Gwalior, Dated : 25-09-2021
      Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for appellant.

      Shri G.K. Agarwal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

Learned counsel for appellant in this intra-court appeal preferred u/S. 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order of learned Single Judge passed in

WP 17537/21 on 09.09.2021 by which challenge was made to the order of transfer dated 31.08.2021 passed by the District Education Officer, Bhind transferring the petitioner from Govt. M.S. Matghana to GMS Boys Daboh Bhind, contends that the pleadings contained in Paragraph 6.2 of petition alleging violation of Section 19 and 25 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 so far as it relates to Pupil-Teacher Ratio have not been considered by learned Single Judge.

The aforesaid ground need not detain this Court any further as this Court has held in WA 2035/2019 (Devendra Rajoriya Vs. State of M.P.

and Ors.) on 28.02.2020 that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is student-centric and not teacher-centric and therefore, any relief claimed under this Act for invoking a right emanating from the said Act or grievance of breach of any right under the said Act, can be raised by student and not teacher. Relevant portion of the said Judgment is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-

"(4) 2009 Act was promulgated as a manifestation of right to elementary education which was introduced as fundamental right by incorporation of Art.21A by way of Constitution [Eighty-sixth Amendment] Act, 2002 which was brought into effect from 01.04.2010.

(5) Section 25 of 2009 Act provides, thus:

Âœ25. Pupil-Teacher Ratio.Â"(1) 1[Within three years] from 2 WA-860-2021 the date of commencement of this Act, the appropriate Government and the local authority shall ensure that the Pupil-Teacher Ratio, as specified in the Schedule, is maintained in each school.

(2) For the purpose of maintaining the Pupil-Teacher Ratio under sub-section (1), no teacher posted in a school shall be made to

serve in any other school or office or deployed for any non-educational purpose, other than those specified in section 27.Â​ (5.1) A bare reading of the aforesaid provision in juxtaposition to the object sought to be achieved by 2009 Act, it is clear as day light that the government has to ensure the pupil-teacher ratio as per Section 25 for maintaining quality in elementary education. The 2009 Act is predominantly promulgated for the benefit of all children of the age between 6 to 14 years. The breach of this pupil-teacher ratio may confer a justiciable right to the student of elementary education, but cannot bestow any justiciable right upon a teacher who is transferred entailing disturbance in pupil-teacher ratio at the school from where he/she is transferred out. This is so because the 2009 Act is children- centric and not teacher-centric.

(6) The sole ground of the petitioner before this Court is that the impugned transfer leads to disturbing the statutory pupil-teacher ratio provided u/Sec.25 of 2009 Act.

(7) In view of above discussion based on the nature of the scheme of 2009 Act, it is evident that the petitioner who is a teacher does not have any justiciable right to successfully assail his transfer solely on the ground that the same causes disturbance to the pupil- teacher ratio prescribed in 2009 Act.

(8) Consequently, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to interfere in the well-reasoned order of learned Single Judge. Accordingly, present appeal stands dismissed, sans cost." In view of above, this Court does not see any reason to take a different 3 WA-860-2021 view than the one taken by learned Single Judge and accordingly declines interference.

Liberty has already been extended by learned Single Judge to petitioner/appellant to raise his compassionate grounds by way of representation to the employer.

Consequently, present writ appeal stands dismissed sans cost.

                      (SHEEL NAGU)                                 (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
                         JUDGE                                                 JUDGE


                   ojha
YOGENDRA OJHA
2021.09.28
10:52:40 +05'30'