In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has struck down key provisions of a government order issued by the Uttar Pradesh government that implemented a “last-in-first-out” transfer policy for primary school teachers. The court found the policy arbitrary and discriminatory, as it unfairly targeted junior teachers for frequent transfers without rational justification.
The decision was delivered in a combined judgment addressing multiple petitions, including Pushkar Singh Chandel and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Writ – A No. 5232 of 2024), and involved Judge Justice Manish Mathur. Various legal teams, led by Senior Counsel H.G.S. Parihar, Sudeep Seth, and others, represented the petitioners. The government’s case was presented by Chief Standing Counsel, C.S.C., alongside Ran Vijay Singh, and other counsels for the Basic Education Board.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, all employed in basic education schools in Uttar Pradesh, challenged Clauses 3, 7, 8, and 9 of the government order issued on June 26, 2024. These clauses mandated the transfer of teachers on a “last-in-first-out” basis to schools with insufficient staffing relative to student numbers, ostensibly to meet pupil-teacher ratio standards under the Right to Education Act, 2009.
The government argued that such transfers were essential to maintain equitable pupil-teacher ratios and ensure educational standards. However, the petitioners contended that the policy was discriminatory and violated their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. The policy also treated Shiksha Mitras, contractual teachers, equivalently to permanent teachers, a decision that was questioned for its legality.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
The court examined several fundamental issues in the case:
1. Arbitrariness and Discrimination: The primary issue centered on the “last-in-first-out” transfer policy, which was deemed arbitrary as it lacked a rational basis. The court emphasized that the policy subjected junior teachers to repeated transfers, thus preventing them from achieving career stability.
In his judgment, Justice Mathur observed, “The classification of teachers based on their service duration without any rational basis is discriminatory and fails the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution.”
2. Inclusion of Shiksha Mitras in Teacher Ratios: Clause 3 of the government order counted Shiksha Mitras, who lack the qualifications of regular teachers, in calculating the teacher-student ratio. The court held this inclusion as erroneous, observing that Shiksha Mitras could not be equated with Assistant Teachers in terms of qualifications and service rules.
3. Contradiction with Existing Legal Precedents: The court referenced previous decisions, particularly Reena Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, where a similar policy was invalidated. Citing this, the court reiterated that executive orders must align with judicial precedents and statutory provisions, noting that “Executive orders can supplement statutory provisions but cannot supplant them.”
4. Doctrine of Precedent and Res Judicata: The court rejected the State’s defense that the policy had been previously upheld, emphasizing that each case presented new facts not considered in earlier judgments like Govind Kaushik vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.
Decision
The court ruled that the government order failed to meet constitutional standards of equality and fairness. Judge Mathur explained that while the government has the authority to issue policies, such policies must align with legislative intent and constitutional mandates. The judge also highlighted that the policy was devoid of any reasonable classification, as it arbitrarily categorized teachers based solely on their tenure, thus violating Article 14.
Quoting from the judgment, “For a classification to survive under Article 14, it must be based on intelligible differentia and have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation.”
The court further noted that the policy disregarded statutory service rules that permit transfers only with the consent of the affected teachers. Judge Mathur concluded that “the impugned clauses must be invalidated as they contravene the statutory rules governing teacher transfers.”
