HIGHCOURT, SCHOOL INSPECTION : प्राइमरी स्कूलों में छात्रों की सही संख्या पता करें, उपस्थिति से ज्यादा आंकड़े दिखाने पर हाईकोर्ट ने दिए स्कूलों के निरीक्षण व जांच के आदेश
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 7
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5225 of 2017
Petitioner :- Anurag Tiwari And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Basic Edu.Govt.Of Up Lucknow & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
On 06.04.2016 this Court had passed the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Let the learned Standing Counsel seek instructions from the State Government as to the validity of the Government Order dated 31.03.2015, as, it is the contention of the petitioners that as per the norms prescribed by the Government by the earlier government orders read with the impugned government order provision has been made only for one Head Master and four teachers in a primary school, which is contrary to the statutory provision contained in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the rules made thereunder i.e. Section 19 and 25(1) read with the Schedule, wherein at Serial No. 1(b) the following is prescribed:-
"(b) For sixth class to (1) At least one teacher per class so that eighth class there shall be at lest one teacher each for-
(i) Science and Mathematics;
(ii) Social Studies;
(iii) Languages.
(2) At least one teacher for every thirty- five children
(3) Where admission of children is above one hundred-
(i) a full time head-teacher
(ii) part time instructors for-
(A) Art Education;
(B) Health and Physical Education;
(C) Work Education."
In this regard the order of the Director of Education (Basic), U.P. Lucknow dated 28.02.2017 contained in Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioners dated 27.03.2017 should also be seen.
List/ put up on 25.04.2017 as fresh.
It would be better, if an affidavit is filed by the State Government before the next date.
The Director of Education (Basic), Nishatganj, U.P. Lucknow shall file an affidavit indicating, after on the spot inspection and verification/ inquiry, as to the number of students in the Junior High School where the petitioners claim to have been selected and appointed.
Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties today itself on payment of usual charges, if possible."
Today Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla has appeared on behalf of State. He states that inspection was conducted in respect of school in question on 18.04.2017 and out of the admitted students strength of 295 from classes VI to VIII as found in the records of the institution as of now, only 64 students were present. When confronted Sri D.K. Mishra learned counsel appearing for the petitioners who claim to be the teachers in the said institution submitted that on account of extreme heat they may not have attended the school on that very day but on the next day 125 students were present in the institution who had taken mid-day-meal.
Let a copy of the report dated 21.04.2017 with respect to submission of inspection report dated 18.04.2017 produced before the Court by Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla be placed on record.
Be that as it may, the first and foremost question which was raised on the last day was as per the norms fixed by the State Government regarding requisite number of teachers based on the students strength in an institution vide Government order dated 31.03.2015 etc. and its sustainability in the light of the promulgation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder especially Section 19 and 25(1) read with the Schedule and Serial No. 1(b) mentioned therein relating to classes VI to VIII, according to which atleast one teacher should be available for every 35 children apart from other provisions contained therein apparently the Government order(s) which are contrary to the provisions contained in the Act, 2009 and the Rules made thereunder cannot be sustained. However, instead of recording any conclusive opinion in this regard considering the ramifications involved, it would be appropriate that the State Government has a re-look in this regard and takes a fresh policy decision which is in consonance with the relevant provisions of law in this regard and the Rules as aforesaid.
As regards the students strength in the institution often such facts are brought to the notice of the the Court where the institutions in their records display a large number of students as having been admitted, but, on inspection, the actual attendance of the students is much low. It is often said that this is for ulterior purposes. This aspect of the matter also needs to be looked into by the State Government. Such practices should be stopped by resorting to regular inspection and inquiry not only at frequent intervals but on a continuous basis as in the event fictitious figures have been mentioned in the records then obviously, if, an inspection spreading over several days is conducted then such fictitious elements would not be found, in this way, the Government and its functionaries would be in a better position to arrive at a better conclusion as regards the number of students actually studying in the Primary school and the scope of fraud would be minimized and appropriate action is taken. Therefore, the State Government shall look into this aspect of the matter as also all ancillary issues in this regard. Let this exercise be conducted by the State Government at the State level basis i.e. in each district and prompt action is desired in the matter. Six months would be appropriate for evolving a policy decision in this regard.
The counsel for petitioners insists that the admission process is long drawn and continues till September of the calendar year. This aspect shall also be scrutinized and considered by the State Government.
Based on the aforesaid exercise the claim of the petitioners for salary shall be considered by the State Government and necessary direction in this regard shall be issued by it in respect of them to the competent authority. Thereafter consequences shall follow as per law.
Let the Standing Counsel send a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary/Secretary Basic Education for compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Let a copy of this order be issued to the counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 24 hours.
Order Date :- 25.4.2017
Vijay
(Rajan Roy, J)
0 Comments