'Non Appointment Of Teachers A Clear Violation Of Article 21-A': Allahabad HC Contemplates Action Against UP Govt Officials

Emphasizing that the non-appointment of teachers is a clear violation of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, a bench of Justice Prakash Padia observed that this Fundamental Right cannot be fulfilled unless the State appoints Assistant Teachers and Headmasters in Primary Schools run and controlled by the State Government.

“The State Government has a duty to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years and provide all the necessities required to provide good quality of education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years. The first and foremost requirement in order to provide free education to the children is appointment of teachers. It is well known fact that in the entire State of U.P., large number of posts of teachers in Primary Schools are vacant,” the single judge remarked.

The court observed thus while hearing a writ petition filed by a junior high school, which moved the HC aggrieved by the teaching and non-teaching staff's non-appointments according to the sanctioned posts.

During the hearing in this case on December 10, 2024, the Court specifically observed that due to the large number of vacancies, the state's education quality is being compromised, and no progress has been made in addressing the issue.

Further, on January 31, the court was informed that despite letters sent by the state government to the Director General of Schools, Education, UP, requesting a clear report or proposal for the appointment of the teachers, no such proposal had been forwarded to date.

Taking note of this, the single judge sought the response of the Director General of School Education in Uttar Pradesh. Though a response as required was filed, the Court, in its order passed on February 17, did not seem satisfied with the same.

In its order, the Court expressed its shock, pointing out that although the DG was instructed to submit the decision made by him in response to the letters from the State Government, he instead attached a letter from the Director of Education (Basic), U.P. Prayagraj, addressed to the State Government.

The Court further noted that the affidavit contained no mention of the decision taken by the respondents in response to the State Government letters. The single judge prima facie opined that the DG "had not even gone through the order passed by this Court" when filing the affidavit.

In this view of the matter, the Court directed the Additional Secretary, U.P Basic Education, to file his personal affidavit on or before the next date of listing explaining the reasons why the action should not be taken against the erring officials of the State Government for violation of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India.

The matter will now be taken up for a hearing on March 11.

Counsel for Petitioner: Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Samarath Singh,Sankalp Narain,Sr. Advocate