Forcing Teacher To Impart Subject They Are Not Qualified In Violates Students' Right To Education Under Article 21A: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court set aside the transfer of a Grade III Teacher (Social Studies) whose subject was changed to English, stating that if she is forced to impart education on a subject she is not qualified in, she may have to face adverse civil consequences like departmental proceedings.

The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Saneep Shah further held that the appellant's transfer would also deny her prospective students' the benefit of being taught by a qualified teacher, thus violating their rights under Article 21-A of the Constitution.

The Court was hearing an appeal against the order of the single bench of this Court which dismissed appellant's petitioner to quash her transfer order.

Appellant was appointed as a Grade III Teacher in 2006 without any subject being specified. However, during her graduation, while English was her compulsory subject, history and economics were her optional subjects. Hence, she was alloted social science as her subject.

However, in 2019, while changing staff pattern, she was declared as a surplus, and was transferred twice while being treated as an English Teacher. She made representations to the State stating that she was wrongly placed in the order after being treated as an English teacher, without any resolution.

Subsequently, she approached the Court which dismissed the petition filed by the appellant ruling that there was no further sub-designation attached to the appellant's appointment as a teacher. And the level at which she was appointed, subjects could be assigned as per the school's requirements. This ruling was challenged by the appellant before this Court.

It was argued by the appellant that as per the guidelines issued by the Director, Primary Education, Bikaner, in 2016, it was clarified that a person shall be treated as a teacher of the optional subject which he/she cleared during his/her graduation, and not the compulsory subject.

The appellant submitted that based on the guidelines, since she was eligible for teaching Social Sciences and not English, her transfer illegal and contrary to law that might also attract adverse civil consequences for her in case she was not able to achieve the requisite results.

After hearing the contentions, the Court held that despite being aware of the limited scope of interference in transfer orders, the present case was peculiar wherein the impact of the challenged order would be punitive in nature and was passed with malice in law.

The Court perused the guidelines relied upon by the appellant as well as referred to Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules. It was held that the Rule 266 revealed qualification for appointment of Upper Primary Teacher and that specifically provided that the candidate must have graduated with corresponding language as an optional subject.

Further, the Court also highlighted qualification of teacher and senior teacher provided in the Schedule II of Rajasthan Educational (State and Subordinate) Services Rules 2021, and held that as per these also the appellant could not be posted at a place where she was forced to teach a subject in which she was not qualified.

“…in case she is not able to impart education (teach) properly in subject-English the same may entail adverse civil consequences including departmental proceeding. Further, the students will be denied the benefit of a qualified teacher to teach on the subject and that by itself would be a violation of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India.”

Accordingly, the transfer order of the appellant as well as the order passed by the single judge of the Court was set aside.

The State was directed to post the appellant at the same place or a nearby place where she was required to teach Social Sciences.

Title: Smt. Gauri v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 193

Click Here To Read/Download Order