Latest news with #BasicShikshaDepartment


Time of India
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
SC agrees to hear plea against UP govt's decision to merge primary schools
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a plea challenging the Uttar Pradesh govt's decision to merge over 100 primary schools with low student enrolment. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi agreed to list the matter in the week after advocate Pradeep Yadav, appearing for petitioner Taiyyab Khan Salmani, sought an urgent hearing. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Yadav said over hundreds of government schools would be shut and thousands of primary students would be out of school, being forced to study in neighbhouring schools, if the government order of June 16 was not stayed. He said the state govt's order was challenged before the high court but it dismissed the pleas on July 7. Justice Kant said though a policy decision, it was ready to examine the issue if government schools were being shut. The plea said on June 16, the additional chief secretary of state's Basic Shiksha Department issued an order directing for taking steps for pairing of the schools managed under the supervision and control of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and owned by the state government. "Consequent to which on dated June 24, 2025 the actual list of the schools which are being paired being 105 in numbers has been issued," the plea said. The high court dismissed the petitions on July 7 without considering the true facts and circumstances of the case that the said merger order will directly affect and destroy the already vulnerable education system in the state, it added. The petitioner argued that the policy decision was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 21A of the Constitution as it offended the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the rules framed by the state government. The plea referred to Rule 4(1)(a) and said it was incumbent for the state government to establish a school with respect to children from Class 1 to 5 in the habitation where there was no school within a distance of a kilometer and the habitation having a population of at least 300 people.


Time of India
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court agrees to hear plea against UP govt's decision to merge primary schools
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a plea challenging the Uttar Pradesh government 's decision to merge over 100 primary schools with low student enrolment A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi agreed to list the matter in the week after advocate Pradeep Yadav, appearing for petitioner Taiyyab Khan Salmani , sought an urgent said over hundreds of government schools would be shut and thousands of primary students would be out of school, being forced to study in neighbhouring schools, if the government order of June 16 was not said the state government 's order was challenged before the high court but it dismissed the pleas on July Kant said though a policy decision, it was ready to examine the issue if government schools were being plea said on June 16, the additional chief secretary of state's Basic Shiksha Department issued an order directing for taking steps for pairing of the schools managed under the supervision and control of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and owned by the state government."Consequent to which on dated June 24, 2025 the actual list of the schools which are being paired being 105 in numbers has been issued," the plea high court dismissed the petitions on July 7 without considering the true facts and circumstances of the case that the said merger order will directly affect and destroy the already vulnerable education system in the state, it petitioner argued that the policy decision was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 21A of the Constitution as it offended the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the rules framed by the state plea referred to Rule 4(1)(a) and said it was incumbent for the state government to establish a school with respect to children from Class 1 to 5 in the habitation where there was no school within a distance of a kilometer and the habitation having a population of at least 300 people.


Hindustan Times
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC agrees to hear plea against UP govt's decision to merge primary schools
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a plea challenging the Uttar Pradesh government's decision to merge over 100 primary schools with low student enrolment. SC agrees to hear plea against UP govt's decision to merge primary schools A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi agreed to list the matter in the week after advocate Pradeep Yadav, appearing for petitioner Taiyyab Khan Salmani, sought an urgent hearing. Yadav said over hundreds of government schools would be shut and thousands of primary students would be out of school, being forced to study in neighbhouring schools, if the government order of June 16 was not stayed. He said the state government's order was challenged before the high court but it dismissed the pleas on July 7. Justice Kant said though a policy decision, it was ready to examine the issue if government schools were being shut. The plea said on June 16, the additional chief secretary of state's Basic Shiksha Department issued an order directing for taking steps for pairing of the schools managed under the supervision and control of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and owned by the state government. "Consequent to which on dated June 24, 2025 the actual list of the schools which are being paired being 105 in numbers has been issued," the plea said. The high court dismissed the petitions on July 7 without considering the true facts and circumstances of the case that the said merger order will directly affect and destroy the already vulnerable education system in the state, it added. The petitioner argued that the policy decision was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 21A of the Constitution as it offended the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the rules framed by the state government. The plea referred to Rule 4 and said it was incumbent for the state government to establish a school with respect to children from Class 1 to 5 in the habitation where there was no school within a distance of a kilometer and the habitation having a population of at least 300 people. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.


Indian Express
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Allahabad HC dismisses pleas challenging govt order on merger of primary schools
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.'