'Open To Teachers To Raise Concerns To Authorities In Case Of Personal Difficulties', Rajasthan HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Directions To State To Not Deploy Teachers As BLO

The court observed that it is always open for teachers to approach the concerned authority in any given case of personal difficulties. The court opined that it is expected of the concerned authority to look into the grievance raised and in case, found justified to redress the same appropriately.

Justice Arun Bhansali, while observing that the plea raised in the petitions has no substance, ruled,

"However, insofar as, the personal difficulties to a teacher in a given case are concerned, it is always open for them to approach the concerned authority in this regard and it is expected of the concerned authority to look into the grievance raised and in case, found justified to redress the same appropriately. With the above observations, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petitions. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed."

Further, the petitioners relying on the circulars issued by the education department dated 18.10.2011 and 01.06.2012, sought a specific direction that as the education department itself has mandated that teachers could not be deployed for the said work, the respondents be directed not to deploy teachers like petitioners as BLO.

In their reply, the respondents stated that communication by the Secretary of the Department to the Director, Primary Education has been issued on 27.08.2015 specifically indicating that the teachers can be deployed as BLOs and therefore, as the earlier communications stand superseded by the communication dated 27.08.2015, the reliance placed by the petitioners is misplaced.

The court pursued Section 27 of Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and opined that it deals with prohibition of deployment of teachers for non-educational purposes, by way of exception provides that the teachers can, inter-alia, be deployed for duties relating to elections to the local authority or the State Legislature or Parliament, as the case may be and it cannot be said that the work of BLO would not fall within the said category.

It was also observed by the court that a list of as many as 13 Government / Semigovernment employees have been indicated in the Manual on Electoral Rolls, who could be deployed as BLOs. The court ruled that the petitioners have failed to place on record material to indicate as to what percentage of teachers have been deployed / deputed as BLOs compared to other employes and as such, it cannot be said that the requirement in the Manual of drafting the teachers minimally has not been followed by the respondents.

Moreover, the court added that deputing an elector of the polling station as BLO is concerned, the manual indicates 'to the extent possible' and therefore, the petitioners cannot seek enforcement of the said condition so as to get relieved from the duties as BLOs.

The court noted that petitions principally have been filed relying on the circulars of the year 2011 & 2012. In addition, to this, the court pursued circular issued on 27.08.2015 and opined that the said circular clarifies each and every aspect regarding the engagement of teachers as BLOs and for all other non teaching work and therefore, the plea sought to be raised in this regard based on previous circulars essentially has now no basis.

The counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the Manual on Electoral Rolls issued by the Election Commission of India provides 13 categories of Government/ Semi-government employees, who can be deployed as BLO and the same further provides that teachers shall be drafted minimally as BLO and therefore, the respondents are not justified in deploying teachers as BLOs and that the BLO should be a local person only.

He also submitted that even in cases where there are obvious difficulties in teachers working as BLOs, inasmuch as, in some cases where the school has only three teachers and all the three teachers have been deployed as BLOs, which results in difficulties to the teachers as well as the students and therefore, the said action of the respondents is not justified. He added that that deployment is contrary to the provisions of Section 27 of the Act and on that count also, the action of the respondents in deploying the teachers as BLOs, deserves to be mandatorily stopped.

The counsel for the respondents submitted that the plea sought to be raised has no basis as it is based on the circulars of the year 2011 & 2012. He added that in so far as the Manual on Electoral Rolls is concerned, the same only indicates that to the extent possible, the BLO should be an elector in the polling station where he is deputed as BLO, which cannot be read as a mandatory condition. It was also submitted that teachers are deployed only in cases where the teachers are required to be deputed as BLOs and that petitioners' submission has no basis as Section 27 of the Act, in fact, provides that teachers can be deputed for election work.

Adv. Dinesh Kumar Ojha appeared on behalf of petitioners while Adv. Utkarsh Singh for AAG Sunil Beniwal appeared on behalf of respondents.

Case Title: Mahesh Swami v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 99