The Allahabad High Court has ruled that deploying teachers as Booth Level Officers (BLOs) or assigning them other election-related responsibilities, including duties connected with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, does not violate students' fundamental right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution.
Justice Vinod Diwakar dismissed a writ petition filed by five assistant teachers from Uttar Pradesh's Saharanpur district, who had sought exemption from election-related responsibilities to concentrate exclusively on their regular classroom duties.
The petitioners had argued that assigning teachers to electoral work diverted them from their primary responsibility of educating students and consequently infringed the right to free and compulsory education guaranteed under Article 21A and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).
Rejecting the contention, the court held that Section 27 of the RTE Act expressly permits the deployment of teachers for election-related duties, bringing BLO responsibilities within the statutory exception.
"Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 expressly permits the deployment of teachers for election-related duties, and BLO duties fall within this exception. The submission based on Article 21-A and the RTE Rules is, therefore, misconceived," the court observed.
Section 27 of RTE Act permits election-related duties
The petitioners, who serve as assistant teachers in junior and senior basic schools in Saharanpur, had approached the High Court seeking directions restraining the authorities from assigning them BLO responsibilities or interfering with their regular academic functions.
They maintained that their terms and conditions of service did not contain any provision authorising their deployment for non-teaching assignments.
The teachers also argued that requisitioning their services for electoral roll revision violated Article 21A of the Constitution, along with the provisions of the RTE Act and its governing rules. According to them, such assignments took educators away from their primary responsibility of teaching and adversely affected students' access to classroom education.
They also relied on a departmental communication dated September 3, 2012, in support of their arguments.
However, the High Court rejected these submissions, pointing out that Section 27 of the RTE Act specifically allows teachers to be deployed for duties relating to elections to local authorities, state legislatures and Parliament, as well as disaster relief and census operations.
The court held that BLO responsibilities connected with electoral roll preparation and revision fall within the election-related exception provided under the legislation. Consequently, such assignments cannot automatically be treated as a violation of the right to education.
Electoral roll revision is a statutory responsibility
The High Court also examined the legal framework governing the preparation and revision of electoral rolls.
It observed that the exercise is a sovereign statutory function under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, conducted under the superintendence, direction and control of the Election Commission of India in accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution.
The court further referred to Section 13CC of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which provides that government employees deployed for the preparation and revision of electoral rolls are deemed to be on deputation to the Election Commission for the duration of their assignment.
In this context, the Bench held that the deployment of state government employees, including teachers, for electoral responsibilities is backed by an express statutory framework.
The court also noted that the petitioners had failed to place any material on record demonstrating that their deployment as BLOs had actually prejudiced classroom instruction or adversely affected students' education.
Court finds no grounds to interfere
After examining the submissions and the relevant statutory provisions, the High Court concluded that the teachers had failed to establish a violation of students' right to education or demonstrate sufficient grounds for judicial intervention.
It held that the mere assignment of teachers to election-related responsibilities does not establish that their students have been deprived of their constitutional entitlement to education.
Finding no justification for exercising its discretionary writ jurisdiction, Justice Vinod Diwakar dismissed the petition.
The case was titled Azra Parveen And 4 Others vs State Of UP And 3 Others.
Advocates Narendra Kumar and Shobhit Singh appeared for the petitioners, while Chief Standing Counsel Jay Prakash Singh represented the Uttar Pradesh government.