KANIKA BANSHIWAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Ashwani Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on decision of co-ordinate Benches in case of Charu Gaur and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 6 others (Writ - A No. 6975 of 2021) so also in case of Madan Gopal and 8 others vs. State of U.P. and 6 others (Writ - A No. 17884 of 2019), and placing reliance on these decisions, it is submitted that in terms of the prohibition under Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2009"), prohibits the District Magistrate and District Basic Education Officers to depute Assistant Teachers for works in violation of Section 27 of the Act of 2009, thus petitioners' engagement as BLO be set aside.

(3.) Petitioners have also placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Sunita Sharma Advocate High Court and Another vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, passed in PIL No. 11028 of 2015, where services of the petitioners were requisitioned for the purpose of work of verification of ration cards, where Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition and directed the District Administration to not to requisition the services of teachers in Primary Schools and Junior High Schools for carrying out such work, which is without the authority of law.