MANOJ S/O RAGHUNATH PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SCHOOL AND EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned AGP appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. With the consent of learned Counsels appearing for respective parties, petition is taken up for final hearing. The petitioners are Assistant Teachers working in Zilla Parishad School, Jalgaon. The petitioners raised challenge to Government Resolution (for short "GR") dated 03.07.2015 bearing No.lax.k1015/iz-dz-19/lax.kd and particularly challenge is raised to clause (4) of the GR. The submission is that by the said clause (4) of the GR the petitioners and alike teachers are directed to undertake duties which are extraacademic duties. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners invited our attention to the GR dated 03.07.2015. Copy of the GR is placed on record at Exh."A". It would be necessary to refer to the object behind issuing the GR and object reads (loosely translated) as - collecting and feeding information about the schools, teachers, students in a system known as (SARAL - Systematic Administrative Reforms for Achieving Learning by Students). The Government Resolution then states that there is always consistent demand of information at various levels which deals with the academic aspects. Such information though is available, on the basis of hard copy, such information is scattered information and it is not collective information. It takes human resources sparing valuable manhours for collecting such information. It also adversely affects the academic manhours available for the teachers resulting in the teachers getting inadequate time for the teaching purpose. The GR further states that in view of recent Act i.e. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act or Right to Education Act, 2009, certain limited academic duties can be assigned to the teachers. Then it is stated that, if necessary information is made available collectively, it will facilitate the teachers and students in achieving the goal of better education standards. It is then stated that such collective information will also help to facilitate the teachers in dealing with their issues of service conditions or other service benefit claims. With this object, the State Government thought it fit to develop system known as "SARAL". The information is collected at various levels, such as, from the institution date base, school data base, teaching and nonteaching data base, student data base etc. Then it is stated that all the information collected by these data base would then facilitate to prepare UDISE. This exercise then would help in obtaining information immediately without wasting valuable human resources and the human workhours. It is stated that ultimately time saved can be utilized by the teachers in the basic duty i.e. teaching.

(2.) As the petitioners raise challenge to clause (4) it is necessary to refer to clause (4). Clause (4) deals with fixing the responsibility of feeding the information and finalizing the information. In the chart of clause (4), Sr.No.1 deals with data base related to institutional level. Sr.No.2 deals with data base of school level. As these two categories are not much relevant for our purpose, it may not be necessary to deal with other details of these categories. The petitioners are having serious objection to entry of Sr.No.3 of clause (4), which deals with data base of teaching and nonteaching staff. The competent officer is the Head Master. The finalization of the information is assigned to the Center head or Ward Officer. Then the Block Education Officer or the Urban Convener is assigned with duty of verification of information. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the teachers are expected to collect information and feed it by way of online process through computers. Learned Counsel for the petitioners then submitted that in many schools, computers are not available. He then submitted that many teachers are not conversant with the technical knowledge of feeding information by way of computers or by way of online process. This is the grievance of the petitioners.

(3.) Insofar as the grievance is concerned, learned AGP submitted that the grievance is only an apprehension that too illfounded apprehension. Learned AGP then by inviting our attention to the GR, submitted that even if the computers are not available in the school, the petitioners and alike teachers can very well take assistance of mobile phone in filling the information. Learned AGP invited our attention to clause 16 and 17. Learned AGP then submitted that care has been taken by the State Government that in case facility of online process is not available, in that situation, the teachers are permitted to fill up the information by way of offline process and then the information can be sent and/or feed at a place where internet facility is available. Clause 16 reads that the Head Master/Class Teacher/Institute may take assistance of mobile phone having internet facility for filling the information of the school of the students. Learned AGP submitted that in the affidavit in reply, these clauses are highlighted. Learned AGP then submitted that this duty assigned to the teacher is not a duty which can be said to be having no academic purpose or is an extraacademic duty. On the contrary this is an additional assignment of the teachers. The information is made readily available in the school about the students and the infrastructural facilities of the school. Teacher is only expected to fill this information by way of online process, thereby making it available in the centralized system known as "SARAL System". Learned AGP then submitted that the exercise of filling the information is not periodical exercise, but it is only annual exercise. As such the apprehension of the petitioner that this exercise may result in losing valuable manhours or engaging human resources to the duties which are not academic duties is not acceptable.