The Allahabad High Court has said that it was not necessary for a teacher to have specialization in any subject to teach in Kasturba Schools (Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya).

A single-judge bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Kuldeep Kumar Saxena And 19 Others.

The bunch of writ petitions is by the teachers engaged on contractual basis in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, and have been continuing as such for the last more than 10 years. They are aggrieved by a circular dated July 14, 2020, issued by the State Project Director, UP Education for All Project Board, insofar as it contemplates categorization of existing contractual teachers into Sangat (consistent) and Asangat (inconsistent) categories and consequential direction not to renew the term of Asangat contractual teachers from the academic session 2020-2021, on the basis of such categorization.

A further prayer has also been made to command the respondents not to interfere in the working of petitioners as warden/whole time teachers/part time teachers and to ensure payment of monthly emoluments to them.

After the right to education was recognized as a fundamental right for children in the 6-14 age group, 86th amendment to the Constitution of India, the Government of India launched a scheme, known as Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV) for establishment of residential schools at upper primary level for girls belonging to socially and economically weaker sections and other minorities for backward areas of the country with an specific intent to target drop outs. This scheme was later merged with the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, which is a scheme of State known as ‘UP Education for all Project’.

The need to establish these institutions was felt necessary as the rural female literacy rate was much below the national average as per the 2001 census.

The KGBV institutions were established by the State Government with financial support from the Central Government under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. The ratio of financial contribution between the Central Government and State Government stood at 65:35. A total number of 746 KGBVs are stated to have been established and functional in the State of U.P., as of now. Guidelines laying down financial norms for such institutions as also budgetary allocation for the staff etc. is provided by the State from time to time.

The State Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, on April 15, 2005 issued a circular after approval was obtained from the State Government for establishment of KGBV.

In pursuant to circular, a committee at district level was formed in each district of Uttar Pradesh to appoint one warden-cum-teacher with qualification of “trained graduate” and was to receive honorarium of Rs 7,000 per month, whereas four posts of full time teachers were sanctioned drawing honorarium of Rs 6,000 per month with trained graduate qualification in Science, Mathematics, Biology and other teachers. Post of three part time teachers was also created in Hindi, Home Science and Science. The warden-cum-teacher and full time teachers were expected to stay in the institution. Preference was to be given to female candidates. These appointments were to be contractual in nature for a period of almost one year (11 months & 29 days) and could be extended with the approval of the district level committee.

A subsequent circular issued on May 16, 2006 specified the committee for appointment of teachers and also the blocks in which these institutions were to be established.

The State Project Director of U.P Education for all under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan issued a circular on January 8, 2011 directing commencement of KGBVs w.e.f February 15, 2011.

A committee consisting of various officers with District Magistrate as Chairman, Chief Development Officer as Vice-Chairman and District Basic Education Officer as Member Secretary was constituted in each district for management and supervision of these KGBVs. The objectives for establishing KGBV institutions were specified as providing education to female students belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, OBC, Minority or other female children from below the poverty line. The norms for selecting location as also the targeted admission figures were specified. Admission of 100 girl students was contemplated with representation of SC/ST and minority girls to the extent of 75% and remaining 25% from below the poverty line. The targeted students were girls, who were not a part of any school education programme. Various camps etc were organized for motivating the family members to encourage them to send their female child to KGBV.

The procedure for appointment has been specified, as per which advertisements were to be issued in two State level newspapers and the manner for selection was specified for these institutions.

A circular then came to be issued on October 12, 2012 providing for renewal of contractual teachers engaged in KGBV. This circular provided that teachers whose services were not found suitable shall not be continued in the next session but before their discontinuance an opportunity would be given to improve their working or else they be discontinued by giving a month’s notice. The discontinuance of contractual engagement could, however, be made only with the approval of the District Magistrate.

Also Read: Madras High Court says assembling law students in front of their college cannot constitute unlawful assembly, quashes criminal proceedings against law…

The Principal Secretary, Department of Basic Education, issued yet another circular on July 29, 2013 in which the district level selection committee was re-constituted and two categories were created in KGBV, namely Model-1 and Model-2. Model-1 was to be in respect of institutions having 100 girls with total staff capacity of 15, whereas Model-2 KGBVs were to have 50 girl students with total staff capacity of 12. A provision was made in this Government Order for appointment of Urdu language teachers only in areas where members of minority communities were in substantial numbers.

The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education and Literacy revised the norms of institutions in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan on March 24, 2014, whereby maintenance grant per girl came to be enhanced from Rs 900/- to Rs 1,500/- per month. The warden as per the financial norms were now to receive Rs 25,000/- per month and the full time teachers as per The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 norms were to receive Rs 20,000/- per month. Urdu teachers were to receive Rs 12,000/- per month, whereas part time teachers were to receive Rs 5,000/- per month. Various other heads were specified for increased financial support to the KGBV institutions.

The Secretary, Basic Education Department, thereafter issued a circular on June 30, 2015 modifying the provisions in the light of a circular issued by Government of India on March 24, 2014. Posts for different subjects were also sanctioned in the said circular.

Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel for petitioners, submitted that though the authorities could scrutinize the engagement of contractual teachers with an intent to renew their term but such examination must remain relevant and be based on provisions of law rather than a misdirected approach based on an erroneous understanding of law.

Also Read: Gauhati High Court disposes of PIL on road from Jamiri to Buragaon

Shashi Nandan, Senior Counsel appearing for the State Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, U.P, assisted by Durga Singh, Advocate, opposing the petition contends that the circular in question merely ascertains relevant information so that the KGBVs function in accordance with the RTE Act, 2009.

It is also argued on behalf of respondents that they have complete right to engage teachers for KGBV and the authorities and are otherwise acting as per law. Submission, accordingly, is that no interference with the impugned circular is thus called for.

It is also urged that irrespective of the above the arguments advanced in this bunch of writ petitions have already been repealed by the Court in a batch of writ petitions with leading Writ Petition, decided on August 12, 2021.

Also Read: Manipur: Senapati police rescue youth from mob justice over charges of raping minor

“In view of the above discussions the Court is of the considered view that qualification for appointment of teacher in an upper primary school is not with reference to any subject but is trained graduate with TET as per notification of NCTE dated 29th July, 2011 inasmuch as the notification issued by NCTE is not only binding upon State Governments but also has and overriding effect,”

-the court observed.

According to the petitioners, part time teachers are those who do not stay in the KGBVs while full time teachers stay in the school but they both remain in school throughout the school timings. It is therefore urged on behalf of petitioners that distinction between full time and part time teacher needs to be properly defined and all part time teachers attending the KGBV throughout the day cannot be denied salary at par with full time teachers since both remain in school throughout the school hours. According to petitioners discrimination is being practiced in the garb of classification.

On behalf of the respondents it is sought to be urged that part time teachers work only for a few hours, but no specific provision in any applicable circular or policy is placed before the Court, which may demonstrate that lesser working hours are prescribed for part time teachers engaged in KGBV. This aspect therefore does require necessary classification by the respondents or else the purpose of undertaking the impugned exercise would be futile.

Also Read: Allahabad HC dismisses PIL as infructuous

The Court further observed that,

“The circular has not taken note of the NCTE regulations which prescribe the qualifications for appointment of teachers for upper primary classes and has also not examined the issue of engagement of teachers with reference to curriculum formulated by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. Respondents have proceeded on an erroneous assumption that subjects specified in Schedule appended to Sections 19 and 25 of the RTE Act, 2009 are exhaustive and therefore do not require additional subjects cannot be taught, is wholly fallacious.

The distinction drawn between Sangat (consistent) and Asangat (inconsistent) teachers coupled with the direction for renewal of contract to be made as per classification clearly unsustainable. Resultantly the circular dated July 14, 2020, issued by the State Project Director, cannot be sustained and stands quashed.

The Court directed the respondents to revisit the issue, in the light of qualifications prescribed vide NCTE regulations as also the curriculum prescribed by the Basic Shiksha Parishad for Classes VI to VIII and to proceed for the reasons mentioned herein above thereafter.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the bunch of writ petitions.

The Allahabad High Court has said that it is unfair to remove a contractual employee from the post or terminate his contract, without giving him an opportunity of being heard.

A Single Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra passed this order on Monday, while hearing a petition filed by Munni Poonam, engaged as Warden in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya at Belhari in District Ballia of Uttar Pradesh in 2011.

The petitioner said the initial appointment for one year was extended for almost 10 years. However in 2020, the petitioner’s work was not found satisfactory and therefore by the order dated January 2, 2021, the petitioner’s extension in the Academic Sessions 2020-2021 was discontinued.

The order was assailed on the ground that no opportunity of hearing has been given and that the petitioner’s work otherwise was satisfactory throughout.

Sanjay Chaturvedi, who has obtained instructions in the matter, stated that the petitioner’s work has not been found satisfactory. It was, however, admitted that neither the petitioner has furnished a report of the Committee, nor has been heard in the matter.

It is not in issue that the petitioner has worked for nearly 10 years. In the event the respondents found that there was some adverse report with regard to the petitioner’s working in the institution, she ought to have been confronted with such material and only after an opportunity in that regard, a decision could have been taken whether or not to continue the petitioner’s contractual engagement.

As this course has not been adopted, the order cannot be sustained, the Court said.

Also Read: Madras High Court refuses to resume physical hearings in near future

“However, in the facts of the case, it is provided that the petitioner shall represent her grievance before respondents, along with a copy of this order, within two weeks from today. The respondents shall furnish reports of the District Committee to the Petitioner, within two weeks, thereafter. The Petitioner will have an opportunity to submit her explanation/comments, within a further period of two weeks, thereafter.

The matter shall be placed before the District Committee, along with the comments/explanation of the petitioner and an appropriate decision would be taken in the matter relating to the petitioner’s contractual engagement while passing a fresh order, within a further period of two months thereafter.

“The order in the Writ Petition shall abide by the fresh orders to be passed by the authority concerned, as indicated above,” the Court ordered and disposed of the plea.

The Allahabad High Court has ordered the management of a school in the state to renew the contract of a Teacher-com-Warden, whose services were not considered for renewal on the ground that the marksheet, on the basis on which the initial appointment was granted, was forged.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia on Wednesday passed this order, while hearing a Writ Petition filed by Archana Tyagi, seeking quashing of the order dated January 15, 2021, passed by the Respondents not considering her contract renewal.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of a scheme of Government of India namely ‘Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya’ of 2004, which was subsequently merged with the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Programme, the petitioner, being eligible, applied for an appointment and was selected as Warden-cum-Teacher (Hindi). Her appointment was on contractual basis and her contract was renewed from time-to-time.

It was further stated that the petitioner was served with a showcause notice on December 23, 2020, wherein it was indicated that the marksheet submitted for BA Degree showed 631 marks, whereas the marksheet made available showed 621 marks, a difference of 10 points.

The petitioner was asked to explain the difference, failing which, the showcause notice said, it would be presumed that she has nothing to say.

The petitioner said she had passed BA IIIrd year examination from the University, wherein total marks obtained by her were shown as 631. The said marksheet, which is on record, indicates that the petitioner obtained 191 marks out of 300 in Part III Examination and 430 marks in Part I and Part II Examination out of 700 and the total amounts to 631 marks, as indicated in the mark sheet.

The petitioner moved an application before the University highlighting the error in the calculation. The University issued a letter to the petitioner on January 12, 2021, wherein they accepted their mistake. A duplicate mark sheet was issued to the petitioner, showing 621 out of total 1000 marks.

Once the University has accepted the error on their part, there appears to be no justification in holding that the petitioner had erred or committed any wrong in obtaining recruitment upon the said marksheet wrongly, the Court said.

The Counsel for the petitioner said that this fact was brought to the knowledge of the respective authority, however, the same has not been considered in the order dated January 15, 2021.

Also Read: Supreme Court gives another chance to UP to reconsider holding Kanwar Yatra

“After hearing the parties, who are present, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending as the error has crept in the marksheet because of the University and not because of the Petitioner and this aspect has not been considered in the impugned order.

“Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order dated January 15, 2021, in so far as it relates to the petitioner is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Respondents to pass a fresh order, after taking into consideration the duplicate marksheet issued by the petitioner, as well as the letter of the University accepting their mistake vide letter dated January 12, 2021.

“The respondents shall give the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, permitting her to place reliance on whatever document she deems fit in support of her contention. The exercise shall be completed by the Respondents as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of a copy of this order. Consequently, steps for considering the renewal of the contractual appointment shall also be considered”, the Court ordered.