SUPREME COURT K ORDER AA GAYA HAI

ABHEE SOCIAL MEDIA SE COPY PASTE.
BAAD MEIN AAPKI LINK BHEE DETE HAI

ye lo order aa gaya ......................

CA 4347-4375/14
1

ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.6 SECTION XI

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014

STATE OF U.P & ORS Appellant(s)

VERSUS

SHIV KUMAR PATHAK & ORS Respondent(s)

(With appln.(s) for intervention and office report)

WITH S.L.P.(C) No.62/2014
(With interim relief and office report)
S.L.P.(C) No.1672/2014
(With office report)
S.L.P.(C) No.1674/2014
(With office report)
C.A. No.4376/2014
(With interim relief and office report)
S.L.P.(C)...CC No.10408/2014
(With office report)
S.L.P.(C) No.11671/2014
(With office report)
S.L.P.(C) No.11673/2014
(With office report)

Date : 17/12/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT

For Appellant(s) Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Satya Mitra Garg, AOR
Mrs. Manju Aggarwal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Yeshraj Bundela, Adv.
Signature Not Verified

Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv.
Digitally signed by
Chetan Kumar
Date: 2014.12.18
16:46:36 IST
Reason: Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR
Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Adv.
CA 4347-4375/14
2

Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, AOR

Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, AOR

Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR

Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR

Mr. B.P. Singh Dhakray, Adv.
Mr. Shakti Singh Dhakray, Adv.
Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, S.G.
Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Adv.

Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR
Mr. Abhishek Amritanshu, Adv.
Mr. Suryodaya Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Deepika Kalia, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv.
Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR
Mr. Kapish Seth, Adv.

Mr. Amarendra Sharan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR
Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv.

Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Kr. Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Singh, AOR

Mr. P.P. Rao, Sr. Adv.
Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, AOR

For NCTE Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Prateek Bhatia, Adv.

Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR
Ms. Geeta Singh, Adv.

Mr. Alok Gupta, AOR

Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR
CA 4347-4375/14
3

Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR

Mr. M. P. Jha, AOR

Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR
Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv.

Mr. T.N. Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Manohar Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Dushyant Swaroop, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR

Mr. Vipul Maheshwari, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Mittal, Adv.
Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR

SLP 62/14 Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR
Mr. Vivek Vishnoi, Adv.

Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Simanta Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Shreepal Singh, Adv.
Mr. V.D. Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv.

Mr. Nishit Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

Hearing resumed.

In course of hearing, we have thought it appropriate

to pass an interim order by which the vacancies can be filled

up and the academic climate in the State of Uttar Pradesh

shall not suffer an unnecessary winter.
CA 4347-4375/14
4

Be it noted, this Court on 25th March, 2014, had

passed the following order:

"Leave granted.

Hearing expedited.

By this interim order, we direct the State of
Uttar Pradesh to fill up the vacancies of
Assistant Teachers in the schools pursuant to
the advertisement issued on 30.11.2011 as per
the directions issued by the Division Bench of
Allahabad High Court in the case of Shiv Kumar
Pathak & Ors. [Special Appeal (Defective)
No.237 of 2013] and connected matters as
expeditiously as possible at any rate within 12
weeks' time from today.

Further, the State in the letter of appointment
that will be issued to the successful
candidates shall mention that their appointment
is subject to the result of the civil appeals
that are pending before this Court.

The appointee(s) shall not claim any equities
at the time of final disposal of the civil
appeals. All actions/proceedings of the State
Government will be subject to the final result
of these civil appeals."

Despite the aforesaid order, the State has not

carried out the appointment process. After hearing the

learned counsel for the parties at length on various
CA 4347-4375/14
5

occasions, we are inclined to modify the order passed on

25th March, 2014, and direct that the State Government shall

appoint the candidates, whose names have not been weeded out

in the malpractice and who have obtained/secured seventy

percent marks in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). The

candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled

Tribe/Other Backward Classes and the physically handicapped

persons, shall be appointed if they have obtained/secured

sixty-five percent marks. If there is any policy of the

State Government covering any other category for the purpose

of reservation, it may be given effect to with the same

percentage. It shall be mentioned in the appointment letter

that their appointment shall be subject to the result of

these appeals and they shall not claim any equity because of

the appointment, for it is issued on the basis of the

direction passed by this Court. The letters of appointment

shall be issued within a period of six weeks.

At this juncture, we must state that the

advertisement was issued to fill up 72,825 vacancies in the

post of Assistant Teachers, who have to impart education to

students of Classes I to V. We have been apprised by the

learned counsel for the respondents that there are three

lacs posts lying vacant as on today. In this context, we

must recapitulate the objects and reasons from the Right of

Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which
CA 4347-4375/14
6

read as follows:

"The crucial role of universal elementary
education for strengthening the social fabric
of democracy through provision of equal
opportunities to all has been accepted since
inception of our Republic. The Directive
Principles of State Policy enumerated in our
Constitution lays down that the State shall
provide free and compulsory education to all
children up to the age of fourteen years. Over
the years there has been significant spatial
and numerical expansion of elementary schools
in the country, yet the goal of universal
elementary education continues to elude us.
The number of children, particularly children
from disadvantaged groups and weaker sections,
who drop out of school before completing
elementary education, remains very large.
Moreover, the quality of learning achievement
is not always entirely satisfactory even in the
case of children who complete elementary
education.

2. Article 21A, as inserted by the
Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act,
2002, provides for free and compulsory
education of all children in the age group of
six to fourteen years as a Fundamental Right in
such manner as the State may, by law,
determine.

3. Consequently, the Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Bill, 2008, is
CA 4347-4375/14
7

proposed to be enacted which seeks to provide,-

(a) that every child has a right to be provided
full time elementary education of satisfactory
and equitable quality in a formal school which
satisfied certain essential norms and
standards;

(b) 'compulsory education' casts an obligation
on the appropriate Government to provide and
ensure admission, attendance and completion of
elementary education;

(c) 'free education' means that no child, other
than a child who has been admitted by his or
her parents to a school which is not supported
by the appropriate Government, shall be liable
to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses
which may prevent him or her from pursuing and
completing elementary education;

(d) the duties and responsibilities of the
appropriate Governments, local authorities,
parents, schools and teachers in providing free
and compulsory education; and

(e) a system for protection of the right of
children and a decentralized grievance
redressal mechanism.

4. The proposed legislation is anchored in the
belief that the values of equality, social
justice and democracy and the creation of a
just and humane society can be achieved only
through provision of inclusive elementary
CA 4347-4375/14
8

education to all. Provision of free and
compulsory education of satisfactory quality to
children from disadvantaged and weaker sections
is, therefore, not merely the responsibility of
schools run or supported by the appropriate
Governments, but also of schools which are not
dependent on Government FUNDS."

Primary education can be equated to the primary

health of a child. When a child is educated, the Nation

marches towards civilization. No student can inculcate or

cultivate education without guidance. Definitely not a

child, who is supposed to get primary guidance from a

teacher, for him he is like a laser beam. The State, as the

guardian of all citizens and also with a further enhanced and

accentuated responsibilities for the children, has a

sacrosanct obligation to see that the children are educated.

Almost two thousand years back, Kautaliya had stated that the

parents who do not send their children to have the teachings,

deserves to be punished. Similar was the climate in England

almost seven centuries back. Thus, the significance of

education can be well recognized. In such a situation, we

cannot conceive that the posts would lie vacant, students go

untaught and the schools look like barren in a desert waiting

for an oasis. The teacher shall serve the purpose of oasis

in the field of education. Hence, the aforesaid directions.
CA 4347-4375/14
9

The competent authority shall file a compliance

report, failing which they shall face the consequences as the

law provides and the law does not countenance disobedience of

the law and orders of the court.

Let the matter be listed on 25th February, 2015, for

further hearing.

(Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master