बीएसए सरकारी कर्मी, नहीं रख सकते अलग नजरिया, बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के अलग पैनल लायर्स रखने पर हाईकोर्ट ने उठाये सवाल

बीएसए सरकारी कर्मी, नहीं रख सकते  अलग नजरिया, बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के अलग पैनल लायर्स रखने पर हाईकोर्ट ने उठाये सवाल। 

शिक्षा का अधिकार देने से इंकार, हाईकोर्ट ने सरकार से मांगा जवाब।

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 7 

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22632 of 2019 

Petitioner :- Kartik And 4 Others 

Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others 

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Dutta Pandey 

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav 

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. 

1. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 vests rights in the children of the State. The enactment is consistent with the fundamental rights of children to education under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. Under the scheme of the Act, education of children, from the age of 6 to 14 years, has been reclaimed by the State Government. It is the duty of the appropriate Government, along with the local authority, to establish schools and bring to fruition, rights conferred under this Act, as well as under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Act is a complete code. The right of children, implemented under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is now a sovereign function of the State. The Basic Education Officer, has critical functions under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and is an important component to discharge the obligation of the State under the Act. Under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari acts as a functionary of the State and not an agent of the Basic Shiksha Parishad. 

2. The Basic Education Officer, is an employee of the State Government. He is paid through the State Exchequer. In the light of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 read with The Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, the Basic Education Officer carries out certain functions of the State. 

3. The U.P. Basic Education Parishad, is a Board, which has the responsibility of affiliating institutions, is a creature of the statute. However, the entire administration of education in the State, has to be looked afresh, in the light of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. The sovereign function, of the State to impart education, and to fructify the rights of the children from the age 6 to 14 years under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 read with The Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, cannot be delegated by the State to the Board. 

4. The Board, apparently has also appointed counsels of the Basic Education Officer. The Secretary of the Basic Education Board (Basic Shiksha Parishad), shall clarify by what authority, under the law, to appoint counsels for State officials, performing State functions. 

5. The counsels for the State are appointed under the LR Manual. Prima facie, there appears to be some discord. The Court was faced, with the consequences of this dichotomy, while hearing the petitions, by children/their guardians, to enforce the rights of the children, under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Article 21A of the Constitution of India. Dichotomy, created by the individual counsels for the Basic Education Officer and Standing Counsels for all State authorities, is creating interference in the administration of justice, in such matters. The Basic Education Officers, almost function like autonomous entities, beyond the supervision of the State Government. Effective directions cannot be issued by the Court, often due to contrary stands and shifting of responsibilities, by the counsels, for Basic Education Officer on one side and the Standing Counsel on the other. The Board has the full authority to appoint its own counsels. However, it appears, that the State Government, has exclusive prerogative to appoint counsels for the State Officials, who are discharging State functions. 

6. It may be noticed, that in the case of Board of High School and Intermediate Education, does not appoint separate counsels. The Board of High School and Intermediate Education are represented through their learned Standing counsels. This facilitates the administration of justice. 

7. Needless to add, that autonomous entities like State corporations have full right to appoint their counsels, but when such autonomous exercise of power, prima facie, exceeds jurisdiction and interferes with the administration of justice, the Court has no option, but to call the authorities to justify their actions. 

8. Sri Ashok Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Basic Shiksha Adhikari, submits that the District Magistrate has issued orders, and the Basic Education Officer has nothing to do with the matter. 

9. From the submissions, of the learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, it appears, that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, has washed his hands off the matter. 

10. This shifting of responsibility and making contrary stands in Court, is a result of the separate panel of counsels for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The rights of children under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, are too precious to be held at ransom to benefit a few individuals. For efficient implementation of these rights, the State is ultimately responsible. The State authorities, cannot take contrary stands, which result from the multiple panels of counsels. The State has to speak in one voice and take consistent stands in Court, especially, in such matters. This problem requires a systemic correction. 

11. Put up this matter as fresh on 06.08.2019. 

12. In the meantime, learned Standing Counsel shall obtain instructions in the matter, as to how the children under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, are being denied in the instant case.

13. The Principal Secretary, Basic Education, Principal Secretary, Law, Government of U.P., and Secretary, Basic Education Board, Allahabad, shall file their affidavits indicating the stand of the respective departments. 

14. Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General, has been requested on the earlier occasion to assist the Court in this matter. 

Order Date :- 22.7.2019 

Ashish Tripathi