हाल ही में, इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय ने माना है कि बूथ स्तर के अधिकारियों के रूप में चुनाव कार्य में शिक्षकों की तैनाती बच्चों के नि: शुल्क और अनिवार्य शिक्षा के अधिकार अधिनियम, 2009 की धारा 27 का उल्लंघन नहीं है।
न्यायमूर्ति विवेक अग्रवाल ने उस आदेश को चुनौती देने वाली एक रिट याचिका को खारिज कर दिया है जिसके तहत प्राथमिक विद्यालय में सहायक शिक्षक के रूप में काम कर रहे याचिकाकर्ताओं को बूथ स्तर के अधिकारी (बीएलओ) के रूप में काम करने के लिए कहा गया है।Advertisements
याचिकाकर्ता के वकील ने कई निर्णयों पर भरोसा करते हुए, यह प्रस्तुत किया कि नि: शुल्क और अनिवार्य बाल शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2009 की धारा 27 के तहत निषेध के संदर्भ में, जिला मजिस्ट्रेट और जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी 2009 के अधिनियम की धारा 27 के उल्लंघन में सहायक शिक्षकों की प्रतिनियुक्ति नहीं कर सकते हैं, इस प्रकार बीएलओ के रूप में याचिकाकर्ताओं की नियुक्ति को रद्द किया जाना चाहिए।
शिक्षकों के कर्तव्यों में शामिल चुनाव संबंधी कार्य
न्यायमूर्ति अग्रवाल ने शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम 2009 की धारा 27 और साथ ही यू.पी. के नियम 21(3) का उल्लेख किया और निष्कर्ष निकाला कि:
“जहांतक 2009 केअधिनियमकीधारा 27 मेंनिहितप्रावधानोंकासंबंधहै, यहगैर–शैक्षिकउद्देश्योंकेलिएशिक्षकोंकीतैनातीपररोकलगाताहै, लेकिनजनगणना, आपदाराहतकर्तव्योंयाचुनावोंसेसंबंधितकर्तव्योंकेकामकेलिएउनकीतैनातीकेलिएएकअपवादतैयारकरताहै।“
याचिकाकर्ता के वकील द्वारा दिए गए निर्णयों का उल्लेख करते हुए, न्यायालय ने कहा कि उद्धृत निर्णयों के तथ्य और परिस्थितियां अलग-अलग हैं, क्योंकि उन मामलों में चुनाव कर्तव्य कोई मुद्दा नहीं था।
कोर्ट ने माना कि:
2009 के अधिनियम की धारा 27 में प्रयुक्त शब्द ‘चुनाव से संबंधित कर्तव्य’ हैं। भारत के संविधान का अनुच्छेद 324(1) संसद और प्रत्येक राज्य के विधानमंडल और कार्यालयों के चुनावों के लिए सभी चुनावों के लिए निर्वाचक नामावलियों की तैयारी के अधीक्षण, निर्देशन और नियंत्रण से संबंधित है। राष्ट्रपति और उपराष्ट्रपति को इस संविधान के तहत आयोजित एक आयोग में निहित माना जाता है जिसे इस संविधान में चुनाव आयोग के रूप में संदर्भित किया गया है। ”
ऐसे में कोर्ट ने रिट याचिका खारिज कर दी।
Court No. – 35Case :- WRIT – A No. – 13465 of 2021Petitioner :- Kanika Banshiwal And 3 OthersRespondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 OthersCounsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar YadavCounsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vinit Kumar SrivastavaHon’ble Vivek Agarwal,J.Sri Ashwani Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for petitioners, SriVijay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5and 6. Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the orderannexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby petitionerswho are working as Assistant Teachers in primary school havebeen requisitioned to work as booth level officer (BLO).Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on decisionof co-ordinate Benches in case of Charu Gaur and 2 others vs.State of U.P. and 6 others (Writ – A No. 6975 of 2021) so also incase of Madan Gopal and 8 others vs. State of U.P. and 6others(Writ – A No. 17884 of 2019), and placing reliance onthese decisions, it is submitted that in terms of the prohibitionunder Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free andCompulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “theAct of 2009”), prohibits the District Magistrate and DistrictBasic Education Officers to depute Assistant Teachers for worksin violation of Section 27 of the Act of 2009, thus petitioners’engagement as BLO be set aside.Petitioners have also placed reliance on the decision of DivisionBench of this Court in case of Sunita Sharma Advocate HighCourt & Another vs. State of U.P. & 3 others, passed in PIL No.11028 of 2015, where services of the petitioners wererequisitioned for the purpose of work of verification of rationcards, where Division Bench of this Court allowed the writpetition and directed the District Administration to not torequisition the services of teachers in Primary Schools andJunior High Schools for carrying out such work, which iswithout the authority of law.Similarly, reliance is placed on the decision of a co-ordinateBench in U.P. Pradeshiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Banda andanother vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ – A No. 34082 of2017) decided on 2.8.2017, where teachers were directed toundertake the exercise of verification of ration cards and the listof Antyodaya, BPL Card-holders under the provisions ofNational Food Security Act and High Court was pleased toquash the proceedings.This aspect has already been considered by this Court whiledeciding Writ – A No. 12187 of 2021, decided on 1.10.2021,wherein this Court considered the law laid down in case ofSunita Sharma (supra) and also the provisions contained inSection 27 of the Act of 2009, inasmuch as Section 27 of Act of2009 provides as under :”27. Prohibition of deployment of teachers for non-educationalpurposes.- No teacher shall be deployed for any non-educational purposes other than the decennial populationcensus, disaster relief duties or duties relating to elections to thelocal authority or the State Legislatures or Parliament, as thecasemaybe.”Rule 21(3) of the U.P. Rules,2011 (Special Rule) reads in thefollowing terms: “21(3). For the purpose of maintaining the pupil-teacher ratio,no teacher posted in a school shall be made to serve in anyother school or office or deployed for any non-educationalpurpose, other than the decennial population census, disasterrelief duties or duties relating to elections to the local authorityor the State Legislatures or Parliament.” Whereas the order dated 3.11.2010 passed by the ElectionCommission of India provides that BLOs can be appointed onlyamongst the list mentioned below in addition to teachers whocan be appointed as BLO :-(i) Anganwadi workers, (ii) Patwari/Amin/Lekhpal, (iii) Panchayat Secretary, (iv) Village Level Workers, (v) Electricity Bill Readers, (vi) Postman, (vii) Auxiliary Nurses & Mid-wives, (viii) Health workers, (ix) Mid-day meal workers, (x) Contract teachers, (xi) Corporation Tax Collectors, (xii) Clerical Staff in Urban area (UDC/LDC etc.) This order dated 3.11.2010 passed by Election Commission ofIndia will be of no assistance to the present petitioners, asteachers are included.As far as the provisions contained in Section 27 of the Act of2009 is concerned, it prohibits deployment of teachers for non-educational purposes but carves out an exception for theirdeployment to the work of census, disaster relief duties orduties relating to elections to the local authority or the StateLegislatures or Parliament. Similarly, Rule 21(3) of the U.P.Rules of 2011 has been drafted in terms of the language ofSection 27 of the Act of 2009, leaving no iota of doubt that dutyof teachers can be deployed for the purposes of decennialpopulation census, disaster relief duties or duties relating toelections to the local authority or the State Legislature orParliament. When tested on this touchstone, then cases of Charu Gaur(supra) and Madan Gopal (supra)are distinguishable on theirown facts inasmuch as they have been passed taking intoconsideration orders of Division Bench of this Court in case ofSunita Sharma (supra),U.P. Pradeshiya Prathmik ShikshakSangh Banda and another (supra), whereas the ratio of law laiddown in case of U.P. Pradeshiya Prathmik Shikshak SanghBanda and another (supra) is not applicable to the facts of thepresent case, inasmuch as in case of U.P. Pradeshiya PrathmikShikshak Sangh Banda and another (supra), teachers weredeployed to undertake exercise of verification of ration cardsand the list of BPL card holders under the provisions ofNational Food Security Act. Similarly, in case of Sunita Sharma(supra), they were deployed in the work of verification of cardholding families on the basis of criteria for inclusion andexclusion under the National Food Security Act, 2013, which isnot one of the permitted exercises, for which teachers can bedeployed in terms of the provisions contained under Section 27of the Act of 2009 and therefore, having failed to take intoconsideration a fact that appointment as booth level officer, asare the facts of the case of Charu Gaur (supra) and MadanGopal (supra), ratio of law laid down in case of Sunita Sharma(supra) and U.P. Pradeshiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bandaand another (supra) is not applicable to the facts of that case aswell as present case.Appointment of the petitioners as booth level officer anddeployment of their services for the purposes of conduct ofduties relating to elections, cannot be termed to be coveredunder the provisions of Section 27 of the Act of 2009, providingfor prohibition of deployment of teachers for non-educationalpurposes and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed andis dismissed both on its facts and also on the touchstone of thefact that ratio of law laid down in case of Charu Gaur (supra)and Madan Gopal (supra), which have been followed in case ofSri Krishan vs State of U.P. and 4 others (Writ – A No. 18683 of2019), Writ – A No. 11355 of 2020 (Rakesh KumarVishwakarma and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others), Writ -A No. 8539 of 2021 (Ragini and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 5others), so also in case of Writ – A No. 11781 of 2021 (SandeepKumar Bhatia vs.State of U.P. and 4 others) is not applicable tothe facts and circumstances of the case and in all these orders,this fact was not presented to the court concerned that Section27 of the RTE Act, 2009 itself carves out an exception to theduties relating to elections and meaning of duties relating toelection, include preparation of electoral rolls.The words used in Section 27 of the Act of 2009 are ‘dutiesrelating to elections’. Article 324(1) of the Constitution of Indiadeals with the superintendence, direction, and control of thepreparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, allelections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State andof elections to the offices of President and Vice President heldunder this Constitution treating them to be vested in acommission referred to in this Constitution as the ElectionCommission.Meaning and import of the words used in Section 27 of the Actof 2009 ‘relating to’ have been interpreted by the High Court ofMadras in case of State Wakf Board, Madras vs. Abdul AzeezSahib and Others, AIR 1968 Madras 79 (81), wherein it is heldthat ‘in relation to’ are words of comprehensiveness whichmight both have a direct significance as well as indirectsignificance, dependent on the context. They are not words ofrestrictive content and ought not to be so construed.Similarly, use of word ‘and’, between control of the preparationof electoral rolls for and the conduct of all elections in Article324(1) means that preparation of electoral rolls is a prelude toconduct of elections. Thus, when given comprehensive andinclusive meaning means that preparation of electoral rolls isincluded in duties relating to elections.Thus, when words used in Section 27 of the Act 2009 ‘relatingto’ are construed in terms of the law laid down by DivisionBench of Madras High Court, then there is no iota of doubt thatthe word ‘relating to’ has to be given a comprehensive meaningand will include all the works relating to election whereelections are notified or not and cannot be given retrospectivemeaning as has been sought to be given by a co-ordinate Benchin case of Shri Krishan vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others (Writ-ANo.18683 of 2019) and thus where elections are notified or not, duties of a teacher can be deployed in terms of the provisionscontained in Section 27 of the Act of 2009 even for works inrelations to election which in my opinion includes preparationof electoral rolls as provided under Article 324 of theConstitution of India. Therefore, no fault can be attributed tothe deployment of the petitioners in relations to the electionwork.Therefore, there being no violation of the provisions of Section27 of the Act of 2009, petition fails and is dismissed.Order Date :- 5.10.2021Shalini