परिषदीय शिक्षकों से अग्रिम आदेश तक बीएलओ ड्यूटी कराये जाने पर मा0 उच्च न्यायालय की रोक, आदेश देखें
🔵 बीएलओ ड्यूटी को RTE के अन्तर्गत वर्णित चुनाव ड्यूटी से अलग मानते हुए दाखिल याचिका पर मिली राहत
🔵 इलेक्शन कमीशन ऑफ इंडिया को भी बनाया गया पार्टी
Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 15635 of 2018
Petitioner :- Jitendra Sharma And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajiv Singh Chauhan
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Misra, learned counsel for
Notice on behalf of opposite-parties no. 1,2 and 5 has been
accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel,
while notice on behalf of opposite-parties no. 3 and 4 by Sri
Rajiv Singh Chauhan.
The petitioners are Assistant Teachers in Basic School
under the Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioners prays for and is permitted to implead the
Election Commission of India through its Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi as respondent no.6 and the
amended copy shall be provided to the counsel for
respondent no.6, within 2 working days.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the fifth respondent
has served an order thereby requisitioning the services of
the petitioners as Booth Level Officer for revision of voter-
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that such requisition is illegal and is in the teeth
of the provisions of section 27 of Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education, 2009 which provides that no
teacher shall be deployed for any non-educational
purposes other than the decennial population census,
disaster relief duties or duties relating to elections to the
local authority, or to the State legislatures or Parliament, as
the case may be. It has been submitted that the revision of
the voter-list does not fall in any of those categories
because that does not relate to decennial population
census and as the elections have not yet been notified,
therefore, the deployment, as directed, is illegal and is in
the teeth of the provisions of Section 27 of the RTE Act,
2009. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has
also been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court
in Sunita Sharma v. State of U.P. and others : 2015
(3) ESC 1289 (All) (DB).
The matter requires consideration.
Learned counsel for respondents pray for and are allowed three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks,
thereafter, shall be for the petitioners to file rejoinder
In the meantime, the petitioners shall not be forced to
perform duties as a Booth Level Officer.
Order Date :- 25.5.2018