CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has taken serious note of diversion of teachers for non-teaching duties, observing such practice is adversely affecting students’ right to education.
The bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice MS Raman has directed the state government to file an affidavit on deployment of teachers as cluster resource centre coordinators (CRCCs), and listed the matter for hearing on January 13.
The bench made the observation and issued the direction while hearing a PIL on acute teacher shortage at Dhanamandal Nodal Upper Primary School under Kantapada block of Cuttack district.
The PIL filed by Dhanamandal Gramodyoga Sangathan secretary Bijaya Ram Das stated the school having 112 students functioned with only three teachers, including the headmaster. He alleged violation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, particularly section 25, which prescribes a student-teacher ratio of 35:1, and sought direction to the Odisha government to fill up vacant posts. Advocate Anup Kumar Mohapatra represented the petitioner.
During hearing, it was brought to the court’s notice that teachers are frequently deputed as CRCCs compelling them to spend nearly half of every month away from their schools. Taking on record this concern, the bench observed: “It has been brought to the notice of this court that the teachers are indiscriminately assigned the duty as the Cluster Resource Centre Coordinator (CRCC), and have to spend half of the month hampering the seamless teaching of the students in the school where they have been appointed. It is not a solitary incident where a teacher has been assigned such duty, but recurring feature across the state.”
Mentioning statutory safeguards, the court underlined, “Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 creates an embargo on the deployment of the teacher for any non-educational purposes except the one indicated therein and, therefore, the authorities cannot violate the mandate provided therein.”
Noting that the issue appeared to be statewide, the bench directed the government to file an affidavit detailing the number of CRCCs, their functioning hours, teacher participation and relevant executive instructions by the next date of hearing.
While refraining from a detailed interpretative exercise, the bench emphasised the object of the law and cautioned against compromising classroom teaching. Taking note of the state’s submission that CRCC responsibilities are intended to improve educational quality, the bench said, “We appreciate the manifest intention, but simultaneously, we cannot overlook the fact that the aforementioned exercise cannot be undertaken at the expense of the seamless imparting of education to the children.”
Suggesting alternatives, the court remarked that such centres could function beyond school hours or on holidays, observing that disruption of classes during school hours was never envisioned by the legislators.