Allahabad High Court Directs State To Frame Policy Ensuring Timely Presence Of Teachers In Schools Within 3 Months

The Court observed that it was repeatedly confronted with cases arising out of non-attendance of teachers in primary institutions, which directly impacts the fundamental rights of children belonging to rural and disadvantaged backgrounds.

While adjudicating a batch of writ petitions challenging orders of suspension, a Bench of Justice Prakash Padia observed: “A further mandamus is issued to the respondent no.1, namely Special Secretary, Basic Education, State of U.P., at Lucknow, to take a policy decision and also to take all possible steps for ensuring the presence of teachers in school within time. The aforesaid decision be taken by the Respondent No.1 most expeditiously and positively within a period of 3 months from today.”

Advocate Abhishek Srivastava represented the petitioners, while Advocate Rajesh Khare represented the respondents.

Background

The writ petitions were filed by teachers who had been placed under suspension by the District Basic Education Officers on the grounds that they were not found present in their respective institutions at the time of inspection. Since identical issues were involved, the petitions were heard and decided together.

At an earlier stage, while entertaining one of the writ petitions, the Court had recorded that it was “flooded with matters pertaining to the attendance and non-attendance of teachers in primary educational institutions” and noted that without proper attendance of teachers and staff, the purpose of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 would be defeated.

Pursuant to directions issued earlier, the State placed instructions before the Court, indicating that a committee had been constituted and meetings held to formulate a policy regarding digital attendance for teaching and non-teaching staff in primary institutions.

Court’s Observations

The Allahabad High Court undertook an extensive discussion on the role, dignity, and societal importance of teachers, drawing from ancient Indian scriptures, constitutional values, and binding judicial precedents. It reiterated that teachers are pillars of knowledge who shape the future of children and society at large, and any erosion of their discipline has far-reaching consequences.

“The reverence accorded to teachers in Indian culture is not merely symbolic but reflects a deep-seated recognition of their transformative role. From the ancient Gurukula system to the present-day educational framework, teachers have consistently carried forward the legacy of knowledge, values and ethical conduct. Any dilution of the status, dignity of teachers would have far-reaching consequences not only for students but society at large”, the Bench highlighted.

Referring to multiple decisions of the Supreme Court, the Court noted that the success of the educational process depends considerably on the teacher, who is entrusted not only with intellectual instruction but also with the moral, ethical, and social development of students. The Court observed that without dedicated and disciplined teachers, even the best educational systems are bound to fail.

“In case teachers will not attend the institution within time it will frustrate the mandate of the Act, 2009 and the children will be deprived off from this fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India which was inserted in to the Constitution by means of the Constitution (86 Amendment) Act, 2002 which mandate every State to provide free and compulsory education to all children in the age group of 6 to 14 years”, the Bench stressed.

The Court further held that the persistent absence of teachers from primary institutions violates the mandate of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and deprives children of their fundamental right under Article 21-A of the Constitution. It emphasised that the obligation lies squarely on the State to ensure uninterrupted and effective imparting of education.

Notably, the Court observed that while disciplinary proceedings against individual teachers may continue, the issue of attendance necessitated a broader policy response. The Court observed that failure to maintain consistency and punctuality in teacher attendance undermines public confidence in the education system and adversely affects equality, as diligent teachers become overburdened.

Without interfering with the individual orders of suspension under challenge, the Court directed the disciplinary authorities to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners expeditiously and within a stipulated timeframe.

In addition, the Court issued a specific mandamus to the Special Secretary, Basic Education, State of Uttar Pradesh, to take a policy decision and adopt all possible measures to ensure the presence of teachers in schools within time, directing that such a decision be taken most expeditiously and positively within a period of three months.

Conclusion

The writ petitions were disposed of with the aforesaid directions, with the Court making it clear that ensuring the timely attendance of teachers is essential for safeguarding the constitutional right to education of children and for maintaining the dignity and effectiveness of the teaching profession.

Cause Title: Indra Devi v. State of U.P. and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:215801)

Appearances

Petitioners: Advocates Harsh Narayan Singh, Prabhakar Awasthi, Abhishek Srivastava

Respondents: C.S.C., Advocate Rajesh Khare