1. Heard Sri Sudhir Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Yogendra Singh Bohra, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. At the outset, it has been submitted that the same controversy is involved in number of writ petitions including Writ - A No. 32162 of 2016, wherein on 18.07.2016, the following stay order was granted:
"The petitioners are Assistant Teachers in Senior Basic School under the Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the fourth respondent has served an order thereby requisitioning the services of the petitioners as Booth Level Officer for revision of voter-list.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that such requisition is illegal and is in the teeth of the provisions of section 27 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, 2009 which provides that 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 to the State legislatures or Parliament, as the case may be. It has been submitted that the revision of the voter-list does not fall in any of those categories because that does not relate to decennial population census and as the elections have not yet been notified, therefore, the deployment, as directed, is illegal and is in the teeth of the provisions of Section 27 of the RTE Act, 2009. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has also been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sunita Sharma v. State of U.P. and others : 2015 (3) ESC 1289 (All) (DB).
The matter requires consideration.
Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Sri B.K. Yadav has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4. They pray for and are allowed three weeks time to file counter-affidavit. Two weeks, thereafter, shall be for the petitioners to file rejoinder-affidavit.
List thereafter.
In the meantime, the petitioners shall not be forced to perform duties as a Booth Level Officer."
3. The aforesaid writ petition and bunch of cases is stated to be still pending.
4. Relying on the reasoning contained in the aforesaid order, it has been submitted that the petitioner being Teacher at Senior Basic School, cannot assign duty to the revised voter list. In absence of any election having notified, further violation of the provision of the Right to Education Act, 2009, has been alleged.
5. Also, in P.I.L. No. 36449 of 2016 (Uttar Pradesh Prathmik Shikshak Sangh & 3 Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & 7 Ors.), decided on 08.08.2016, a Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to deal with the similar controversy wherein, it was observed as under:
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from compelling basic school teachers to perform the duties as Booth Level Officers and for Preparation, Revision, Maintenance and D-Duplication of the Electoral Roll/Voter List or any other duty which interferes in the regular functioning of basic school teachers in regularly teaching the students;
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the authorities below for issuing a commission for local inspection of the various properties including shops which are owned and are in possession of the respondent."
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."
6. In view of the aforesaid direction issued by a Division Bench of this Court, no further consideration is required to be made by this Court.
7. Present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021 Abhilash