प्राइमरी स्कूलों में छात्रों की सही संख्या पता करें,उपस्थिति से ज्यादा आंकड़े दिखाने पर हाईकोर्ट ने दिए स्कूलों के निरीक्षण व जांच के आदेश

लखनऊ(विधिसं.)। इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट की लखनउ पीठ ने राज्य सरकार को प्राइमरी स्कूलों में छात्रों की सही संख्या पता करने के लिए नियमित तौर पर प्रत्येक जिले में निरीक्षण व जांच करने के आदेश दिये हैं। स्कूलों के रिकॉर्ड में दर्ज छात्रों की संख्या से बहुत कम छात्रों की वास्तविक उपस्थिति सामने आने पर केार्ट ने यह आदेश जारी किया है। केार्ट ने कहा कि छात्रों के संख्या की सही जानकारी लेते हुए इस मामले में नीतिगत निर्णय लिया जाए। यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति राजन रॉय की पीठ ने अनुराग तिवारी व एक अन्य की ओर से दायर याचिका पर सुनवायी के दौरान पारित किया । याचिका 2 अध्यापकों की नियुक्ति के सम्बंध में थी।

केार्ट ने सुनवाई के दौरान सम्बंधित स्कूल का निरीक्षण करने का आदेश दिया था। निरीक्षण के दौरान स्कूल में बच्चों की उपस्थिति मात्र 65 मिली जबकि दाखिले के रिकॉर्ड में यह 295 थी। छात्रों की संख्या के सम्बंध में आई उक्त रिपोर्ट को संज्ञान लेते हुए केार्ट ने कहा कि शैक्षिक संस्थाएं अपने रिकॉर्ड में बड़ी मात्रा में छात्रों का दाखिला दिखाती हैं लेकिन निरीक्षण में छात्रों की वास्तविक उपस्थिति बहुत कम होती है। अक्सर कहा जाता है कि यह अप्रत्यक्ष उद्देश्यों के लिए किया जाता है। लिहाजा इस पहलू पर ध्यान देना राज्य सरकार के लिए आवश्यक है। केार्ट ने कहा कि इस प्रथा पर नियमित निरीक्षण व जांच कर के रोक लगाई जानी चाहिए। इस से रिकॉर्ड में दिखाए जाने वाले छात्रों के काल्पनिक आंकड़े कम होंगे और सरकार को भी प्राइमरी स्कूलों में पढ रहे बच्चों की सही संख्या का पता चल पाएगा साथ में ये धोखाधड़ी भी बंद होगी। केार्ट ने उक्त टिप्पणियां करते हुए राज्य सरकार को निर्देश दिया कि निरीक्षण की प्रक्त्रिया राज्य स्तर पर प्रत्येक जिले में की जाए। केार्ट ने आदेश के अनुपालन के लिए निर्णय की प्रति प्रमुख सचिव सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा को भेजने का निर्देश देते हुए कहा कि इस सम्बंध में तात्कालिक कार्रवाई करते हुए छह माह में र्नीतिगत निर्णय लें। वहीं केार्ट ने राज्य सरकार के 31 मार्च 2015 के शासनादेश व पूर्व के कुछ शासनादेशों को नि:शुल्क व अनिवार्य शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम. 2009 के प्रावधानों व इसकी अनुसूची के विपरीत पाते हुए कहा कि इन्हें बनाए नहीं रखा जा सकता। उक्त शासनादेश के द्वारा व्यवस्था दी गई थी कि एक प्राइमरी स्कूल में एक हेड मास्टर व चार अध्यापक ही होंगे। जबकि प्रावधानों के मुताबिक 35 छात्रों पर एक अध्यापक होने चाहिए। हालांकि केार्ट ने इस पर निर्णायक राय न देते हुएए राज्य सरकार को इस मामले में पुन: अवलोकन करने का आदेश दिया। न्यायालय ने कहा कि इस सम्बंध में नए नीतिगत निर्णय लिए जाएं जो सम्बंधित प्रावधानों के अनुरूप हों।

प्राइमरी स्कूलों में छात्रों की सही संख्या पता करें,उपस्थिति से ज्यादा आंकड़े दिखाने पर हाईकोर्ट ने दिए स्कूलों के निरीक्षण व जांच के आदेश

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 

?Court No. - 7 

Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5225 of 2017 

Petitioner :- Anurag Tiwari And Another 

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Basic Edu.Govt.Of Up Lucknow & Ors. 

Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra 

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary 

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. 

Heard learned counsel for the parties. 

On 06.04.2016 this Court had passed the following order:- 

"Heard learned counsel for the parties. 

Let the learned Standing Counsel seek instructions from the State Government as to the validity of the Government Order dated 31.03.2015, as, it is the contention of the petitioners that as per the norms prescribed by the Government by the earlier government orders read with the impugned government order provision has been made only for one Head Master and four teachers in a primary school, which is contrary to the statutory provision contained in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the rules made thereunder i.e. Section 19 and 25(1) read with the Schedule, wherein at Serial No. 1(b) the following is prescribed:- 

"(b) For sixth class to (1) At least one teacher per class so that eighth class there shall be at lest one teacher each for- 

(i) Science and Mathematics; 

(ii) Social Studies; 

(iii) Languages. 

(2) At least one teacher for every thirty- five children 

(3) Where admission of children is above one hundred- 

(i) a full time head-teacher 

(ii) part time instructors for- 

(A) Art Education; 

(B) Health and Physical Education; 

(C) Work Education." 

In this regard the order of the Director of Education (Basic), U.P. Lucknow dated 28.02.2017 contained in Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioners dated 27.03.2017 should also be seen. 

List/ put up on 25.04.2017 as fresh. 

It would be better, if an affidavit is filed by the State Government before the next date. 

The Director of Education (Basic), Nishatganj, U.P. Lucknow shall file an affidavit indicating, after on the spot inspection and verification/ inquiry, as to the number of students in the Junior High School where the petitioners claim to have been selected and appointed. 

Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties today itself on payment of usual charges, if possible." 

Today Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla has appeared on behalf of State. He states that inspection was conducted in respect of school in question on 18.04.2017 and out of the admitted students strength of 295 from classes VI to VIII as found in the records of the institution as of now, only 64 students were present. When confronted Sri D.K. Mishra learned counsel appearing for the petitioners who claim to be the teachers in the said institution submitted that on account of extreme heat they may not have attended the school on that very day but on the next day 125 students were present in the institution who had taken mid-day-meal. 

Let a copy of the report dated 21.04.2017 with respect to submission of inspection report dated 18.04.2017 produced before the Court by Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla be placed on record.

Be that as it may, the first and foremost question which was raised on the last day was as per the norms fixed by the State Government regarding requisite number of teachers based on the students strength in an institution vide Government order dated 31.03.2015 etc. and its sustainability in the light of the promulgation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder especially Section 19 and 25(1) read with the Schedule and Serial No. 1(b) mentioned therein relating to classes VI to VIII, according to which atleast one teacher should be available for every 35 children apart from other provisions contained therein apparently the Government order(s) which are contrary to the provisions contained in the Act, 2009 and the Rules made thereunder cannot be sustained. However, instead of recording any conclusive opinion in this regard considering the ramifications involved, it would be appropriate that the State Government has a re-look in this regard and takes a fresh policy decision which is in consonance with the relevant provisions of law in this regard and the Rules as aforesaid.

As regards the students strength in the institution often such facts are brought to the notice of the the Court where the institutions in their records display a large number of students as having been admitted, but, on inspection, the actual attendance of the students is much low. It is often said that this is for ulterior purposes. This aspect of the matter also needs to be looked into by the State Government. Such practices should be stopped by resorting to regular inspection and inquiry not only at frequent intervals but on a continuous basis as in the event fictitious figures have been mentioned in the records then obviously, if, an inspection spreading over several days is conducted then such fictitious elements would not be found, in this way, the Government and its functionaries would be in a better position to arrive at a better conclusion as regards the number of students actually studying in the Primary school and the scope of fraud would be minimized and appropriate action is taken. Therefore, the State Government shall look into this aspect of the matter as also all ancillary issues in this regard. Let this exercise be conducted by the State Government at the State level basis i.e. in each district and prompt action is desired in the matter. Six months would be appropriate for evolving a policy decision in this regard. 

The counsel for petitioners insists that the admission process is long drawn and continues till September of the calendar year. This aspect shall also be scrutinized and considered by the State Government. 

Based on the aforesaid exercise the claim of the petitioners for salary shall be considered by the State Government and necessary direction in this regard shall be issued by it in respect of them to the competent authority. Thereafter consequences shall follow as per law. 

Let the Standing Counsel send a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary/Secretary Basic Education for compliance. 

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 

Let a copy of this order be issued to the counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 24 hours. 

Order Date :- 25.4.2017 

Vijay

(Rajan Roy, J)