The Allahabad High Court has instructed the Uttar Pradesh government to review the deployment of teachers as Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and for other election-related responsibilities.
The court stressed that teachers should only be assigned these roles as a last resort, once all other categories of employees listed in the Election Commission’s guidelines have been exhausted.
The court emphasized that teacher deployment should be reassessed in light of Election Commission Guideline No. 1.5d, read in conjunction with Guideline No. 1.2. It specifically stated, “If other categories of staff mentioned in Election Guideline No. 1.2 are available, teachers should not be deployed for election duties or appointed as Booth Level Officers.”
Justice Ajay Bhanot, delivering the bench’s opinion, noted, “State authorities cannot casually encroach upon teachers' free time. Teachers should not be detracted from their personal reflection or self-education efforts unless all other options have been fully explored.”
This ruling came after a writ petition was filed by Surya Pratap Singh, an assistant teacher, challenging his appointment to election duties. His counsel, Advocate Satyendra Chandra Tripathi, argued that serving as a BLO would interfere with the petitioner’s teaching responsibilities. He pointed out that election duties are continuous and would leave no time for the petitioner to fulfill his primary role as an educator. Additionally, he argued that such assignments violated the Right to Education Act, 2009.
However, the state and the Election Commission defended the decision, claiming that the deployment of teachers for election duties complied with legal provisions and did not significantly interfere with their teaching work.
In examining the issue, the court weighed the balance between the right to education, enshrined in Article 21-A of the Constitution and the Right to Education Act, 2009, and the vital role of elections in a democracy. Drawing from the Supreme Court's judgment in Election Commission of India v. St. Mary's School, Justice Bhanot emphasized the need to strike a balance between the demands of electoral duties and uninterrupted education.
The court also referred to the conflict between election-related tasks assigned to teachers and Section 27 of the Right to Education Act, which restricts teachers from being tasked with non-educational duties, except for specific cases like census work, disaster relief, and elections. Judicial interpretations, including the Nirbhay Singh v. State of U.P. case, have confirmed that while teachers can be assigned election duties, they should not be deployed during teaching hours.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the Election Commission’s guidelines (dated October 4, 2022) identify several categories of eligible employees, including teachers, for BLO appointments. However, these guidelines stress that teachers should only be assigned these duties in exceptional cases, ideally during holidays or non-teaching hours. The court emphasized that teaching extends beyond classroom hours, requiring time for lesson planning, student assessments, and academic development. Overburdening teachers with election responsibilities outside of non-teaching hours could negatively impact the quality of education.
In light of these observations, the court found that the government’s approach of assigning teachers without considering alternative options violated the Election Commission’s own guidelines. It directed the State government to re-evaluate the teacher deployment for election duties within three months.
Until this reassessment is completed, the court ruled that the concerned teachers must continue to fulfill their election duties as listed in the District Magistrate/District Electoral Registration Officer's order dated August 16, 2024, for the Jhansi district.