Best Talent For Appointment As Teachers Can Only Be Extracted Via Open Process: Allahabad High Court Suo Motu Quashes Govt Orders For Compassionate Appointment
The Allahabad High Court held that the Government Orders insofar as they relate to appointment on the posts of teachers on compassionate grounds are in conflict with the mandate of Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1999.
Justice Ajay Bhanot, Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has suo motu quashed the Government Orders relating to Compassionate Appointment for the post of Assistant Teacher, saying that the same amounts to be violative of provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) and ultra vires the Constitutional Rights.
The Court was deciding a batch of Writ Petitions filed by the ones claiming for compassionate appointment as Assistant Teachers on the footing of the Government Orders of the years 2000 and 2013.
A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot held, “The best talent for appointment as teachers can be extracted only through an open and transparent process of public recruitment as per the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid selection based on competitive merit ensures that the most meritorious candidates are appointed as teachers, and the rights of children to quality education are fruitfully realized.”
The Bench further held that the Government Orders insofar as they relate to appointment on the posts of teachers on compassionate grounds are in conflict with the mandate of Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1999.
Advocates Indra Raj Singh, Som Veer, Siddharth Khare, and Aditya Yadav represented the Petitioners while Chief Standing Counsel (CSC) Kunal Ravi Singh and Advocate Gaurav Bishan represented the Respondents.
Issues for Consideration
The following questions arose for consideration before the Court –
A) Whether the prayer of mandamus for appointing the Petitioner as a teacher on the footing of the Government Orders will enforce the Constitution and law or will be in the teeth of the same?
B) Whether the aforesaid Government Orders are in consonance with Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of India and the fundamental right to education vested in children by virtue of Article 21A of the Constitution of India and the rights conferred upon children by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009?
C) Whether the Government Orders are consistent with the Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 1999?
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, observed, “The Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 insofar as they relate to appointment on the posts of teachers on compassionate grounds are held to be ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and 21-A of the Constitution of India. … The Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 insofar as they relate to appointment on the posts of teachers on compassionate grounds are violative of Section 3 of the Right to Education Act, 2009 which vests the right of free and compulsory education in children.”
The Court said that to the contrary, the procedure for appointment of teachers on compassionate grounds is a closed one and provides for sheltered entry to a select few and such process does not allow participation from the public at large.
“Consequently best talent from the open market is precluded from applying for appointment. … Eligibility or possession of minimum qualifications for being appointed as teachers is in effect the sole criteria for appointment on compassionate grounds under the aforesaid Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013”, it added.
The Court further noted that eligibility for appointment as teachers merely prescribes the minimum threshold qualification for holding the post or participation in an open selection and the same in itself does not determine merit.
“In fact eligibility is the start point of the process to determine merit. Constitutional processes of recruitment (as discussed earlier) are the most reliable methods to select the most meritorious from all eligible candidates for appointment as teachers. The argument of the State to the effect that eligibility is in itself the determinant of merit is accordingly rejected”, it remarked.
The Court was of the view that there are vast gaps in competence and huge variations in the merit of the degree holders from such institutions and appointing degree holders from deficient colleges as teachers without filters which test competence or systemic checks which determine merit is fraught with serious consequences.
“Degradation in the quality of teachers by faulty appointment processes and consequent decline in standard of teaching cannot be brooked if the fundamental right of children under Article 21A of the Constitution is to be realized, and the obligations of the State to bring the rights of children under the Right to Education Act, 2009 are to be faithfully discharged”, it also observed.
The Court held that the posts which are not tenable by compassionate appointments under Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1999 can only be filled by the public recruitment processes as contemplated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Court, therefore, struck down the Government Orders insofar as they provide for appointment on the posts of teachers on compassionate grounds. It also remitted the case to the Respondents-authorities.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition.
Cause Title- Shailendra Kumar v. The State of U.P. and 5 Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:57129)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Indra Raj Singh, Som Veer, Siddharth Khare, and Aditya Yadav.
Respondents: CSC Kunal Ravi Singh, ACSC Subhranshu Shekhar, Advocates Gaurav Bishan, Ajeet Singh, Bipin Bihari Pandey, Krishna Kumar Chand, Devesh Vikram, Amicus Curiae Kunal Shah, and Abhinav Mehrotra.
