School Management Committee Is Statutory Body Under RTE Act; Recovery For Financial Irregularities Cannot Be Made From Single Teacher: HP HC
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the School Management Committee is a statutory body under Section 21 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and recovery for financial discrepancies can't be imposed on a single teacher.
The Court further remarked that it is the management committee that collectively monitors government grants, so fixing recovery solely on one member, without involving others, violated the principles of natural justice and fairness.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “as per Section 21 of the RTE Act, SMC is a statutory body, who are to monitor the utilization, the action of the State Authorities in fastening the alleged recovery solely on the petitioner and without involving members of SMC vitiates recovery against the petitioner”.
The petitioner, Ravinder Kumar, worked as a Junior Basic Teacher at Government Primary School Hamirpur. He was also the Ex-officio Member Secretary of the School Management Committee.
In 2012, the committee passed a resolution for the construction of additional classrooms and undertook Building as Learning Aid work using government-sanctioned funds.
He filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging two recovery orders.
The petitioner contended that construction work and disbursal of funds were supervised and executed by the Junior Engineer. He stated that, being a teacher, he could not be held personally liable for technical or financial irregularities.
He further contended that, according to Sections 24 and 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, non-educational duties that involved financial responsibility could not be assigned to teachers.
The Court observed that “once complaint was submitted against Junior Engineer, then, action of the State Authorities in fastening the liability on the petitioner who was only a Member Secretary of School Management Committee, was not needed.”
The Court noted that the inconsistencies in various assesmment reports could not be relied upon to hold the petitioner responsible for financial loss.
The Court stated that any shortfall should have been investigated through a formal departmental inquiry, which was never conducted by the authorities.
The Court emphasized that without conducting a regular departmental inquiry under Rules 14 and 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, recovery from the petitioner was equivalent to imposition of penalty, and penalty could only be imposed after following due process and issuance of a formal charge sheet.
Thus, the Court concluded that the recovery order was illegal and without any authority of law.
Case Name: Ravinder Kumar v/s State of H.P. and others
Case No.: CWPOA No. 4678 of 2019
Date of Decision: 15.10.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General
Ms. Vaishali Lakhanpal, Advocate for Respondent No 6.