logo
Allahabad HC dismisses pleas challenging govt order on merger of primary schools

Allahabad HC dismisses pleas challenging govt order on merger of primary schools

Indian Express07-07-2025
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed petitions challenging a state government order that directed steps to be taken for the merger of government primary schools.
The court had clubbed two petitions filed over the issue and reserved its order on Friday after completion of arguments.
The petitions were filed against the government's June 16 order, issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Shiksha Department, directing merger of government schools under the supervision and control of the basic shiksha adhikaris (BSAs).
The petitioners had also challenged a June 24 follow-up order, issuing a list of 105 schools for the purpose of merger.
'It is essential to add a word with regard to the National Education Policy, 2020, which includes various issues including the pairing of the schools. The policy in itself is laudible and prescriptions have been given with regard to the steps to be taken to ensure that education is imparted at the initial level to all the citizens and the children of the country. There being no material to the contrary in respect of guidelines of pairing in the policy of 2020, which can be said to be arbitrary or in violation of Article 21A of the Constitution and finding the impugned Government Orders to be in furtherance of the said objective, no interference is called for. Present petitions lack merit and are accordingly dismissed,' read the judgment passed by Justice Pankaj Bhatia.
The bench added, 'The obligation cast upon the State shall be scrupulously followed and the State is bound to ensure that no child is left out because of any action taken by the State. It will be the duty of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to ensure that no child is left out for being educated and all steps as are necessary shall be taken as and when required in accordance with law.'
In the order, the court observed that it was important to notice that the Central government had issued the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, prescribing various measures in the interest of students and for improving the infrastructure of primary schools.
Various government orders have been issued, forming committees for implementation of the guidelines issued in the NEP 2020, the bench said.
The court noted, 'Although not cited or argued by either of the parties, Rule 4(3) has some seminal importance as the local authority has been saddled with a responsibility of identifying a neighbourhood school where the children can be admitted and such information is to be made public; the school as referred would be a school as defined under Section 2(n) of the RTE Act, thus, on a conjoint reading of Rule 4(1), Rule 4(2) and Rule 4(3), what transpires is that it is the duty of the State Government to establish schools as far as practical at a distance which is closest to the habitation, and if the same is not possible, to ensure that the children are provided facilities such as transportation etc., and for identification of a school which may be available in the neighbourhood in case the State Government cannot establish school, which would also include school other than the school established by the Government as is the mandate of Section 2(n) read with Section 12 of the RTE Act. Any other interpretation of Rule 4(1) would do violation to the statutory rule keeping in view the considerations of a large State such as the State of Uttar Pradesh with regard to availability of land and other resources and keeping in view the fiscal health of the State concerned.'
It added, 'Thus, on a complete analysis of Rule 4(1), Rule 4(2) & Rule 4(3) read conjointly, it is clear that the State Government is bound to establish school on the nearest possible place from a habitation and in the absence thereof, it is obliged to ensure transportation facilities etc., and in conjunction thereof identifying the neighbourhood schools, whether they are government schools or otherwise.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

KHSTU writes to Bindu seeking discussions on marks normalisation
KHSTU writes to Bindu seeking discussions on marks normalisation

The Hindu

time31 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

KHSTU writes to Bindu seeking discussions on marks normalisation

Even as uncertainty over the State engineering and pharmacy entrance examination (KEAM) 2025 results drags on, the Kerala Higher Secondary Teachers' Union (KHSTU) has written to Minister for Higher Education R. Bindu calling for discussions on marks processes and development of tools for the same. In a statement on Tuesday, the KHSTU said decisions taken without any discussions on such grave issues as normalisation had led to change in candidates' ranks, putting students under immense stress and resulting in setbacks in courts. This created wrong precedent and allowed mistakes to continue, the association alleged. The government should organise discussions and deliberation instead of taking unilateral decisions so that apprehensions of State higher secondary students' who were unfairly disadvantaged could be addressed.

States should frame land-for-land policies in rarest of rare case: SC
States should frame land-for-land policies in rarest of rare case: SC

Business Standard

timean hour ago

  • Business Standard

States should frame land-for-land policies in rarest of rare case: SC

The Supreme Court has cautioned states against their "land-for-land" policies and said such schemes should be floated in rarest of the rare cases. Press Trust of India New Delhi The Supreme Court has cautioned states against their "land-for-land" policies and said such schemes should be floated in rarest of the rare cases. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan further said a plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution to oppose the land acquisition by the state was unsustainable as it called the litigation pursued by Haryana as an eye opener" for all states. The bench was acting on a batch of pleas filed by the Estate Officer of Haryana Urban Development Authority and others challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's 2016 decision that upheld the trial court decrees favoring oustees. We have made ourselves very explicitly clear that in cases of land acquisition the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution is unsustainable, Justice Pardiwala said in a 88-page verdict on July 14. The high court held displaced landowners, whose land was acquired by Haryana authorities for public purposes, entitled to benefit under the 2016 Rehabilitation Policy and not the older, more concessional 1992 scheme. The verdict was critical of Haryana's very unusual policy on land acquisition. Under it, if the government acquires land for public purposes, it provides alternate plots of land to the oustees. The top court observed only in rarest of rare cases the government might consider floating any scheme for rehabilitation of the displaced persons over and above paying them compensation in terms of money. "At times the State Government with a view to appease its subjects float unnecessary schemes and ultimately land up in difficulties. It would unnecessarily give rise to a number of litigations. The classic example is the one at hand, it added. It is not necessary that in all cases over and above compensation in terms of money, rehabilitation of the property owners is a must, the bench noted. Any beneficial measures taken by the Government should be guided only by humanitarian considerations of fairness and equity towards the landowners, it said. The dispute traces back to the land acquired by the Haryana government in early 1990s. While compensation was awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, a parallel state policy promised rehabilitation plots to those displaced. However, the oustees failed to apply in the prescribed format or deposit the required earnest money in line with the 1992 policy terms. Most of the lawsuits were filed 14 to 20 years after acquisition, seeking mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. Dealing with the issues, the bench said the oustees couldn't claim a legal right to plots at the 1992 rates and the 2016 policy, as revised in 2018, would apply. It said oustees were criticised for filing civil suits after unjustifiable delays of over a decade, well beyond the three-year period under the Limitation Act. Though the top court found the suits technically non-maintainable, it exercised equitable jurisdiction to extend the benefit of the 2016 policy. The respondents (oustees) are not entitled to claim as a matter of legal right relying on the decision of that they should be allotted plots as oustees only at the price as determined in the 1992 policy, it said. The bench observed oustees were entitled at the most to seek the benefit of the 2016 policy for the purpose of allotment of plots as oustees. The apex court then granted four weeks to all respondents to make an appropriate online application with deposit of the requisite amount in accordance with the policy of 2016. "If within a period of four weeks any of the respondents herein prefer any online application in accordance with the scheme of 2016 then in such circumstances the authority concerned shall look into the applications and process the same in accordance with the scheme of 2016, it said. The bench clarified it would be up to the authority to examine whether the oustees were eligible for the allotment of plots or not. We make it clear that there shall not be any further extension of time for the purpose of applying online with deposit of the requisite amount, it said. Observing some of oustees might be rustic and illiterate and unable to apply online, the top court allowed them to apply by preferring an appropriate application or otherwise addressed to the competent authority with the deposit of the requisite amount. The bench ordered Haryana and HUDA to ensure land grabbers or other miscreants didn't form a cartel to benefit from the allotment of plots.

Sinking of MSC Elsa 3: Kerala HC admits PILs seeking compensation
Sinking of MSC Elsa 3: Kerala HC admits PILs seeking compensation

The Hindu

timean hour ago

  • The Hindu

Sinking of MSC Elsa 3: Kerala HC admits PILs seeking compensation

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has admitted public interest litigations (PILs) that were filed seeking compensation for fishers and others affected by the sinking of MSC Elsa 3, a Liberia-flagged container vessel that was carrying hazardous and other cargo, off the Alappuzha coast on May 25. The Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji posted the case for hearing in September, considering that a Single Bench is hearing an Admiralty suit filed by the State government seeking ₹9,351 crore as compensation for marine and coastal pollution, loss of fishers' livelihood and the 'remediation' measures following to the ship's sinking. However, the petitioners can approach the Division Bench in instances where directions to the government, the Director General of Shipping or to the Pollution Control Board are needed, the court said. The PILs had been filed by T.N. Pratapan, former MP and chairperson of the Kerala Fishermen Coordination Committee, among others. Another PIL was filed by Charles George, social activist and president of Kerala Fish Workers Coordination Committee and of Swathanthra Matsya Thozhilali Union, seeking $134 million as environmental security deposit following sinking of the vessel. The counsel for MSC, which operated the vessel, said that the inclement weather has affected efforts to salvage goods and oil from the sunk vessel.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store