RAVINDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. H. A. Raza, J. Mr. H. S. Jain, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, espousing the cause of millions of students, studying in Primary as well as Secondary Schools, all over the State, sub mitted that right of students to receive education who will determine the future of this country, cannot be spoiled by those teachers who went on strike which was declared illegal by the State of U. P.

(2.) RIGHT of education in J. P. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 642, has been held a fun damental right by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as that right is embedded under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner who is a practicing lawyer of this Court, by way of public interest litigation, has raised several grievances against the teachers who went on strike recently and prayed for grant of several relief's which are mentioned here in under: (1) Issue a writ, order, direction or decla ration to the effect that strike in schools and colleges being run under the Basic Shiksha Act, 1972, as well as the educational institutions recognised by the Director of Education U. P. and the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U. P. and the Government Secondary Institutions, is illegal being violative of students' fundamental right to education; (2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to ensure the opening of schools and colleges being run order the U. P. Basic Shiksha Act, 1972 and the educational institutions recog nised by the Director of Education U. P. and the Board of High School and Intermediate Educa tion U. P. as also the Government Secondary Institutions, (3) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to take all measures for imparting educa tion and smooth running of classes in the institu tions being run by the opposite parties; (4) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to pay any salary to the teachers of the institutions, for the period they did not or do not perform their duties, applying the principle 'no work no pay'; (5) Issue a writ, order or direction to the effect that strike period shall be taken as 'break' in the services of striking teachers in the institu tions ; (6) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to take suitable action against the strik ing teachers dispensing with their services and make fresh appointments in their place; (7) Issue appropriate writ, order or direc tions in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties, not to charge any fees from the students in the institutions for the period the classes were not running and institutions were closed due to strike; (8) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus command ing the opposite parties not to re-instate those teachers whose services have been dismissed, terminated/dispensed with by them due to strike; (9) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

(3.) IT is really unfortunate that al though India is a signatory to Internation al Convention on the right of the Child, mandate of the Constitution as contained in Article 39 (f) has not been followed. India has assured the world community that by the end of this century the children will be provided free and compulsory education. If the State fails to fulfil this obligation under the Constitution the courts will have to issue directions to the State Government as well as the Union Government to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 (f) of the Constitution of India and the International Convention on the right of the child to which this country is a signatory.