Safiya Malik

The Allahabad High Court Single Bench of Justice Prakash Padia declined to interfere with the suspension of primary school teachers who had approached the Court challenging disciplinary action taken after they were found absent from their school during an inspection. Holding that teacher absenteeism defeats the objective of ensuring free and compulsory education to children, the Court disposed of the petitions without setting aside the suspension orders. It directed the competent disciplinary authority to complete the departmental proceedings against the teachers expeditiously, within two months from receipt of the order. The Court also issued a mandamus to the State Government, through the concerned basic education department, to frame and implement a policy to ensure teachers’ timely presence in schools within three months.

The writ petitions were filed by two primary school teachers who had been placed under suspension by orders issued by the District Basic Education Officers. The suspension orders were passed after inspections of the respective primary institutions, during which the petitioners were allegedly not found present at the schools at the relevant time. The petitioners challenged the suspension orders on the ground that they were arbitrary and unjustified.

Also Read: High Courts Must Consider Gravity Of Offence And Accused’s Role Before Suspending Sentence; Supreme Court

The State authorities defended the action, stating that regular absence of teachers from primary schools had become a recurring issue and that disciplinary action was warranted to ensure compliance with service obligations and statutory duties under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Both matters involved similar factual backgrounds and legal issues and were therefore heard together and decided by a common judgment.

The Court recorded the societal position and responsibility of teachers by observing that “Teachers are essential members of our society. They are pillars of knowledge, shaping the future of our kids—they are educators, mentors, guides, and inspirations.”

Referring to constitutional and statutory obligations, the Court noted that it was repeatedly confronted with matters concerning attendance of teachers in primary institutions and observed that “without proper attendance of teachers as well as staff of the primary institution, the purpose of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 will be frustrated.”

The Court recorded that the State had framed policies for monitoring attendance, including digital attendance systems and constitution of task forces, but stated that “a Government Order (G.O.) regarding attendance digitalization and related work has been issued, permitting the process to be carried out digitally but the same is not on ground.”

Addressing the impact of absenteeism, the Court observed that “some teachers are coming to the institution treating it not only as a job but also as a pious obligation and are teaching in the institution, so they are overburdened, and it also affects the violation of the fundamental right provided under Article 14 of the Constitution.”

The Court recorded the constitutional dimension of the issue and stated that “in large number of primary institutions throughout the State of U.P., teachers are not attending the institution on time.” It further observed that “in case teachers will not attend the institution within time it will frustrate the mandate of the Act, 2009 and the children will be deprived off from this fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India.”

While referring to the position of teachers in Indian tradition and jurisprudence, the Court recorded that “the reverence accorded to teachers in Indian culture is not merely symbolic but reflects a deep seated recognition of their transformative role.” It further noted that “any dilution of the status, dignity of teachers would have far reaching consequence not only for students but society at large.”

The Court also took note of the submission made on behalf of the State that a committee had already been constituted and observed that “policy decision has already been taken by the State-Government to prepare the policy for digital attendance of teaching and non-teaching staff in the primary institution.”

Also Read: Husband’s Post Ex Parte Divorce Bid To Shift Recall Case Shows Ulterior Motive To Delay: Allahabad HC Dismisses Transfer Plea

Without interfering with the suspension orders under challenge, the Court directed that “the disciplinary authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them most expeditiously and positively within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”

The Court further issued a mandamus directing the Special Secretary, Basic Education, State of Uttar Pradesh, “to take a policy decision and also to take all possible steps for ensuring the presence of teachers in school within time,” and  that “the aforesaid decision be taken… positively within a period of 3 months.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Harsh Narayan Singh, Advocate; Prabhakar Awasthi, Advocate
For the Respondents: C.S.C.; Rajesh Khare, Advocate

Case Title: Indra Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:215801                                                                              

Case Number: Writ – A No. 14242 of 2025 (connected with Writ – A No. 15566 of 2025)

Bench: Justice Prakash Padia