Uttarakhand High Court
Ganesh Chandra Upadhyay vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 18 March, 2020
Author: R.C. Khulbe
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, R.C. Khulbe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (PIL) No.39 of 2020
Ganesh Chandra Upadhyay .........Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......... Respondents.
Presence:
Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondents.
Dated: March 18, 2020
Coram: Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral)
1. Admit.
2. This writ petition is filed in larger public interest to quash the government order dated 14.02.2020; and the consequential orders dated 22.02.2020 and 27.02.2020.
3. By his proceedings dated 14.02.2020, the Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand informed the Director, Secondary Education that the District Education Officer had, by letter dated 09.10.2019, proposed merger/ integration of government schools to provide quality education; and, consequently, teachers in Udham Singh Nagar District were temporarily attached to nearby schools. The said order prescribes various conditions, among others, that the selection of a centralized model school must be located within 4 kilometers of Primary, Junior, High School or Intermediate College; after merger, the issue of providing facilities for students, coming from a distance of more than 1 kilometer, shall be taken up separately; provision for various facilities be made; and the student teacher ratio be restricted to the ratio of 30:1.
4. Pursuant thereto, the Chief Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar informed the Block Education Officer, by letter dated 17.02.2020, that, for the convenience of students, free vehicles be arranged. Again, by proceedings dated 22.02.2020, the Chief Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar informed all the Block Education Officers that to cater the needs of children, who are studying in this amalgamated schools, bus facility should be made available.
25. The petitioner's complaint in this writ petition is that the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010, and Uttarakhand Free and Compulsory Primary Education Regulations, 2011, have been violated by the aforesaid proceedings.
6. Section 38 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short 'the 2009 Act') confers power on the appropriate Government to frame rules. In the exercise of said power, the Government of India framed the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010, which was notified in the Gazette of India dated 9.4.2010. Part IV of the 2010 Rules prescribes the duties and responsibilities of the Appropriate Government. Rule 6 therein prescribes the area or limits of the neighbourhood. Under Rule 6(1)(a), the area or limits of the neighbourhood, within which a school is to be established by the appropriate Government or the local Authority, shall, in respect of children in classes from I to V, be located within a walking distance of one km of the neighbourhood. Rule 6(2) enables the appropriate Government, whenever required, to upgrade the existing schools with classes from I to V to include classes from VI to VIII. Rule 6(3) stipulates that, in places with difficult terrain, risk of landslides, floods, lack of roads and, in general, danger for young children in approaching from their homes to the school, the appropriate Government or the local authority shall locate the school in such a manner as to avoid such dangers, by reducing the area or limits specified under sub-rule (1).
7. Rule 4 of the 2011 Regulations framed by the State Government also stipulates the very same distance of one kilometer and, in addition, requires this 1 kilometer distance to be computed from a locality having a minimum of 200 persons. The petitioner's complaint in this writ petition is that the proposed amalgamated school would result in the existing school being shifted to a distance of more than 4 kilometers from the existing localities, and would thereby fall foul of Rule 6 of 2010 Rules and Rule 4 of 2011 Regulations.
8. When the matter came up for admission on 16.03.2020, we granted the Additional Chief Standing Counsel time to obtain instructions. Today, Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on instructions, states that an amalgamated school is proposed to be established to provide quality education to students; steps are being taken to provide free school bus to children living at a distance beyond 1 kilometer; and since the endeavour of the 3 district administration is to provide quality education, this Court should refrain from interference.
9. Both the 2010 Rules and the 2011 Regulations are statutory in character, as they are made in the exercise of the powers conferred on the appropriate Government under Section 38 of the 2009 Act. These Rules/ Regulations constitute "law", and necessitate adherence. That Rule 6 of the 2010 Rules and Rule 4 of the 2011 Regulations would be violated as a result of amalgamation of the schools has not been disputed by Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
10. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the proposed merger is to come into effect from 01.04.2020. Suffice it, in such circumstances, to direct that status quo, as on today, with regards the shifting of schools from the existing locality to another, be maintained until further orders.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) Rdang/Balwant