RAVI S.DHAVAN - (1.) THIS court is in Jurisdiction for matters relating to teachers upto the Intermediate Colleges. There is a flood of litigation which this Court receives regarding appointments or service conditions of teachers and by now it is clear that the High Court is caught up with thousands of writ petitions at the admission stage in educational matters apart from cases in the present jurisdiction. There are matters relating to Class III and IV employees and yet another class of cases arising out of universities and its constituent colleges. Borne matters are very petty. The records bare that there is no issue on appointments made or approved either by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari or the District Inspector of Schools, all officials of the Stage. The teachers complain to the Court that they are not being paid their salary, notwithstanding that there is no issue on their appointments. Then, there are other matters relating to inter se seniority of teachers, or yet other matters or appointments on which approval has been sought by the management of educational Institutions and the papers languish at the various offices of the education department without any action either way.
(2.) NOTICING a large number of litigations coming to the High Court, the Court brought this to the notice of the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. Even otherwise, in so far as the State is concerned, it is entitled to notice of a minimum period of two weeks as required under sub clause (3) of the Article 226 of the Constitution of India So that the State respondents, so 'arrayed, may have adequate opportunity to report their stand. The period of notice which has been made an obligation under the Constitution at the time of considering the grant of an ad interim order, basically does not alter the practice at the Allahabad High Court as contained in the Rules. The Allahabad High Court had even forty years ago made a provisions in its Rules that the State is entitled to a minimum period of two weeks time to seek instructions on a writ petition which may have been filed, if a stay order was being considered. Consistent with both, whether sub clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution, or the Rules, this Court gave an opportunity to the State that it may obtain instructions and if the relief is genuine, then not to bog this Court with a large number of litigations and grant the relief to the teachers at the government level. But, if there is an issue on incorrect facts averred in the writ petitions or there is a genuine controversy on merits, then a counter affidavit most come on record so that these matters do not get held up at the admission stage. Several opportunities were given to the State, as party respondents in these cases. These cases were specifically sorted out with the aid of the computer as it did seem at the time of filing that the State respondents ought to be given an opportunity and report instructions, should the complaint of the petitioners be remediable. The entire purpose of the exercise was to let the bureaucracy in the educational department itself grant relief as a prelude to a redressal system, instead of teachers petitioning this Court from any Inaction at the education department. Learned Chief Standing Counsel, (U.P.). alongwith the Additional Director of Education had sittings with the Court. The Court was informed that the Additional Director of Education has sent communications to each of the District Inspector of Schools district wise as also the Basic Shiksha Adhikaris that they must pay special attention on the writ petitions which have been filed on which notices were being sent to them from the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, (U. P.). In so far as the Chief Standing Counsel is concerned, he has done what he could and beyond this he can do no more No instructions have been received to the Chief Standing Counsel, U.P. and he reports this with regret on these petitions. The State respondents at least, can have no grievance that no opportunity was given to them to submit before the Court.
(3.) BY now it is clear that this state of litigation in educational matters is not unconnected with the indifferent approach or In-action at the Directorate of Education and its various offices, including the District Inspector of Schools and the Basic Education Officers. Not sending of ignoring the Chief Standing Counsel on the instructions he seeks, whatever they may be, b a repeat performance on inaction. The High Court is concerned with this abject, dormant, slothful approach of the bureaucracy of this department of the government living to lts proverbial reputation of either not cutting the red tape or tying more knots than necessary. It is this criticism which academicians and educationists carry not without cause, that there Is to much State interference in education. While planning at the top, whether Centre or State, announces decentralisation of administrative control the education department in Uttar Pradesh is case study that nothing has changed at the grass-root level.;