Denying Students The Benefit Of Qualified Teacher To Teach A Particular Subject Is Violation Of Article 21-A Of Constitution: Rajasthan High Court

The appellant had filed the appeal before the High Court against the judgment dismissing the writ petition filed by her seeking quashing of the transfer order.

The Division Bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Sandeep Shah asserted, “Needless to emphasize that 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.”

Advocate Dheerendra Singh Sodha represented the Appellant while Advocate Ravindra Jhala represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The appellant came to be appointed to the post of Teacher Grade-III by way of an order wherein the subject under which she was appointed as Teacher Grade-III was not specified. It was asserted by the appellant that she had English as her compulsory subject during the Bachelor of Arts qualification acquired by her, and to fortify the same, she had placed on record the relevant mark-sheets. The assertion was also to the extent that she had subjects such as History, Economics, etc. as her optional/elective subjects, and therefore, she was appointed essentially as a teacher to teach the subject of Social Science.

It was the appellant’s case that by way of order dated July 29, 2019 while changing the staffing pattern, she was declared surplus and subjected to posting in Secondary Education Department while treating her to be a teacher in subject of English, whereas she was not appointed as a teacher in subject of English nor was teaching the subject in question. She submitted a representation emphasizing that she was teaching Social Science and therefore, her name in the order was wrongly placed.

The appellant was subsequently transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, on the post of Teacher Level-II in the subject of English. Being aggrieved against the same, the appellant filed a petition which came to be dismissed. It was in such circumstances that the appeal came to be filed before the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the present case was a matter wherein the appellant had been asked to teach a subject for which she was not specifically appointed and therefore, the impact of the order would be punitive and having been passed with malice in law and could not have been passed in the guise of any administrative exigencies.

The Bench noted that the assertion of the appellant that she was teaching Social Science had not at all been controverted by the respondents. Rather, the impugned orders revealed that the appellant was absorbed and thereafter transferred for teaching the subject of English. However, as per the advertisement and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, the qualification for appointment on the post of Upper Primary teacher level II(Class 6 th to 8th) was held to be passing graduation or equivalent examination with the corresponding language as an optional subject.

The Court held that, as per the rules also the appellant was entitled to appointment in the subject of Social Science and therefore, she couldn’t be posted at a place where she was forced to teach a subject qua which she was not qualified.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned orders and directed, “The respondents shall post the appellant at the same place or at a nearby place where she is required to teach students the subject of Social Science as per her qualifications.”

Cause Title:Smt. Gauri v. The State Of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:24106-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Dheerendra Singh Sodha

Respondent: Advocate Ravindra Jhala

Click here to read/download Order