Government teachers cannot evade election duties on pretext of teaching

In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has clarified that government teachers cannot refuse to perform election-related duties by citing the education of children. The Court has upheld the legality of the process of deploying government teachers as Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and stated that preparing and amending the electoral roll is a statutory responsibility.

According to a report by Amer Ujala, a single bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar dismissed petitions filed by five assistant teachers, including Azra Parveen, working in junior and senior basic schools in Saharanpur. These teachers had demanded to be exempted from duties related to the electoral roll. The main argument of the petitioners was that there is no mention of performing duties as a BLO in the service conditions of teachers, and such deployments adversely affect the education of children.

The teachers argued in court that deployment for election duties violates the provisions of the Right to Education Act and Article 21-A of the Constitution. However, the Court did not accept these arguments. The court observed that although the primary responsibility of teachers is to teach children, they can also be appointed to election-related tasks under the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act.

The Court further clarified that government teachers can be deployed as BLOs. Their responsibilities include preparing the electoral roll, making necessary corrections and revisions, and tasks such as Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Preparing and amending the electoral roll is a statutory function under the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

The Court also emphasized that under Section 27 of the Right to Education Act, teachers can be assigned election-related tasks. The responsibilities of BLOs also fall within the ambit of this exception. Thus, the Court ruled that attempts cannot be made to escape lawful election duties in the name of the Right to Education.

In this case, the petitioners also raised the issue that such appointments affect academic activities, but the Court rejected this demand of the teachers, giving precedence to legal provisions.