JUDGMENT Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—This writ petition has been made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the U.P. Pradeshiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh, aggrieved by an order dated 28.4.2017 passed by the third respondent, the District Magistrate/Collector, Banda, whereby he has directed for deployment of teachers of primary schools in verification of Ration Cards. 2. The basic facts pertaining to the issue in question may be stated as follows : 3. The petitioner No. 1, U.P. Pradeshiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. One of the objects of the Society is to look after the interest of its members, who are the teachers working in the recognZed Basic Schools run and conducted by U.P. Board of Basic Education. Petitioner No. 2 is the President of the petitioner No. 1. 4. The grievance of the petitioners’ association is that the third respondent has passed an order directing the teachers working in the Basic Schools to undertake the exercise of verification of Ration Cards and the list of Antyodaya, BPL Card-holders under the provisions of National Food Security Act. The said order has been passed consequent upon the order passed by the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. to take necessary steps for verification by assigning the duty of teachers of Basic Schools for the aforesaid purpose. 5. In compliance of the directions issued by the District Magistrate/Collector, the fourth respondent, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Banda has furnished a list of Assistant Teachers working in recognZed Basic Schools in district-Banda. 6. Aggrieved by the said order the Assistant Teachers, who have been assigned the aforesaid duty, approached the teachers’ association to espouse their cause by taking appropriate remedial action. The petitioner on 4.7.2017 has approached the Basic Siksha Adhikari raising the grievance regarding said decision and invited his attention to the Government Order dated 3.9.2012, wherein it is clearly provided that teachers should not be engaged in any non-teaching works. 7. Upon the said representation, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari forwarded the petitioner’s representation to the District Magistrate/Collector on 5.7.2017. However, the District Magistrate/Collector has not taken any decision on the representation made by the petitioners. 8. The issue involved in this writ petition raises pure question of law, hence with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken on the board for final disposal in terms of the Rules of the Court. 9. However, the District Magistrate/Collector has not taken any decision on the representation made by the petitioners. 8. The issue involved in this writ petition raises pure question of law, hence with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken on the board for final disposal in terms of the Rules of the Court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the order of District Magistrate-Collector assigning the duties of Assistant Teachers is contrary to the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Rules framed under the said Act by the State Government and the Government Order dated 3.9.2012. He next submits that Section 27 of the Act, 2009 contains a prohibition on the engagement of teachers for any non-educational purposes. He further submits that Rule 21(3) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 provides the same prohibition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon an order of this Court in the case of Sunita Sharma Advocate High Court v. State of U.P. and others (Act, 2009) passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 11028 of 2015 decided on 11.3.2015. 10. Learned Standing Counsel has justified the action of the District Magistrate/Collector on the ground that in view of the importance of the work under the National Food Security Act, 2013 (Act, 2013), it was necessary to find out the eligible persons to get he benefit under the said Act. He further submits that a large number of ineligible persons are enjoying the benefits under the provisions of Act, 2013 hence it was necessary to prepare a proper list of eligible persons to eliminate and delete the ineligible persons. He next submits that due to shortage of hands the District Magistrate felt it necessary for the deployment of teachers on non-working days so that the studies of the students may not suffer. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Article 45 of the Constitution of India, one of the directive principles of State policy, provides that the State shall make an endeavor to make free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of fourteen years. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Article 45 of the Constitution of India, one of the directive principles of State policy, provides that the State shall make an endeavor to make free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of fourteen years. The Supreme Court has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Article 45 in the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC 645 . The Court has taken note of the fact that most of the primary schools are in the rural areas, where the children of the weaker section of the society receive their elementary education. The Court emphasZed that primary education needs special attention in view of the important role of education in shaping the children to become good citZens of the country. The relevant part of the judgement is extracted herein below : “172. Right to free education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years (Article 45). It is noteworthy that among the several articles in Part IV, only Article 45 speaks of a time-limit; no other article does. Has it no significance? Is it a mere pious with, even after 44 years of the Constitution? Can the State flout the said direction even after 44 years on the ground that the article merely calls upon it to “endeavour to provide” the same and on the further ground that the said article is not enforceable by virtue of the declaration in Article 37. Does not the passage of 44 years — more than four times the period stipulated in Article 45 — convert the obligation created by the article into an enforceable right? In this context, we feel constrained to say that allocation of available funds to different sectors of education in India discloses an inversion of priorities indicated by the Constitution. The Constitution contemplated a crash programme being undertaken by the State to achieve the goal set out in Article 45. It is relevant to notice that Article 45 does not speak of the “limits of its economic capacity and development” as does Article 41, which inter alia speaks of right to education. What has actually happened is — more money is spent and more attention is directed to higher education than to — and at the cost of — primary education. What has actually happened is — more money is spent and more attention is directed to higher education than to — and at the cost of — primary education. (By primary education, we mean the education, which a normal child receives by the time he completes 14 years of age.) Neglected more so are the rural sectors, and the weaker sections of the society referred to in Article 46. We clarify, we are not seeking to lay down the priorities for the Government — we are only emphasising the constitutional policy as disclosed by Articles 45, 46 and 41. Surely the wisdom of these constitutional provisions is beyond question. This inversion of priorities has been commented upon adversely by both the educationists and economists. *** *** *** “175. Be that as it may, we must say that at least now the State should honour the command of Article 45. It must be made a reality — at least now. Indeed, the National Education Policy 1986 says that the promise of Article 45, will be redeemed before the end of this century. Be that as it may, we hold that a child (citZen) has a fundamental right to free education up to the age of 14 years.” 13. The Unni Krishnan’s case recognised the right to education as a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 to children until they complete the age of 14 years. 14. In the light of the above law and to strengthen the goal of universal elementary education, Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 was moved to insert a new article 21A in the Constitution. 15. To achieve the goal of Article 45 and to give full meaning to Article 21 A of the Constitution, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009) was enacted to provide for free and compulsory education to all children of the age 6 to 14 years. 16. The Common thread running through Article 45, Article 21A and object of RTE Act, 2009 is right to equality and to maintain harmony between directive principles and fundamental rights. 17. The RTE Act, 2009 received the assent of the President on 26.8.2009. It came into force w.e.f. 1.4.2010. The one of the objects of the Act is to give effect to Article 21 A of the Constitution. 18. 17. The RTE Act, 2009 received the assent of the President on 26.8.2009. It came into force w.e.f. 1.4.2010. The one of the objects of the Act is to give effect to Article 21 A of the Constitution. 18. Chapter IV of RTE Act, 2009 enumerate various responsibilities of teachers and schools. 19. The Union of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 38 of the Act, 2009 made the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010, which came into force on 9.4.2010. Section 38 of the Act, 2009 also empowers the appropriate Government to make rules. Exercising the power under the same section, the State of Uttar Pradesh also framed U.P. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2011. Section 27 of the Act, 2009 contains a prohibition on the deployment of teachers for any non-educational purposes. For the sake to convenience, Section 27 is extracted below : “27. Prohibition of deployment of teachers for non-educational purposes.—No teacher shall be deployed for any non-educational purposes other than the decennial population census, disaster relief duties or duties relating to elections to the local authority or the State Legislatures or Parliament, as the case may be.” 20. Rule 21(3) of the U.P. Rules, 2011 (special rule) reads in the following terms : “(3) For the purpose of maintaining the pupil-teacher ratio, no teacher posted in a school shall be made to serve in any other school or office or deployed for any non-educational purpose, other than the decennial population census, disaster relief duties or duties relating to elections to the local authority or the State Legislatures or Parliament.” 21. From a perusal of Section 27 of the Act, 2009 and the Rules framed there under by the State Government it is manifestly clear that the intention of the legislation is that the teachers should give their all the attentions for imparting compulsory education to all the children between the age of 6-14 years, who have fundamental right for education under Article 21A of the Constitution. Section 27 starts with the words “no teacher shall be deployed for any non-educational purposes other than the decennial population census, disaster relief or duties relating to elections to the local authority, or to the State legislatures or Parliament.” 22. In this regard the State Government has also issued a direction on 3.9.2012 to all the District Magistrates. Section 27 starts with the words “no teacher shall be deployed for any non-educational purposes other than the decennial population census, disaster relief or duties relating to elections to the local authority, or to the State legislatures or Parliament.” 22. In this regard the State Government has also issued a direction on 3.9.2012 to all the District Magistrates. The relevant part of the G.O. is in the following terms : ^^eq[; lfpo] mRrj Áns'k 'kkluA lsok esa] ftykf/kdkjh] leLr tuin] mRrj Áns'kA f'k{kk vuqHkkx&5 y[kuÅ fnukad 03 flrEcj 2012 fo"k; & ÁkFkfed rFkk mPp ÁkFkfed fo|ky;ksa ds v/;kidksa dks xSj&'kS{kf.kd dk;ksZ esa u yxk;s tkus ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;@egksn;k] vki voxr gS fd fu%'kqYd ,oa vfuok;Z cky f'k{kk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e 2009 ds ekudksa ds vuqlkj ifj"knh; ÁkFkfed fo|ky;ksa rFkk mPp ÁkFkfed fo|ky;ksa esa v/;kidksa dh deh gSA Ák;% ;g laKku esa yk;k tkrk gS fd bu fo|ky;ksa ds f'k{kdksa dh ftykf/kdkjhx.k ds vkns'kksa ds rgr vkfFkZd tux.kuk ernkrk ukekoyh dh v|ru djus] vU; losZ{k.k] dk;ksZ vkfn esa M;wVh yxk nh tkrh gSA blds QyLo:i fo|ky;ksa esa Nk+=&Nk=kvksa ds iBu&ikBu dk dk;Z ÁHkkfor gksrk gS tks mfpr ugha gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd fu%'kqYd ,oa vfuok;Z cky f'k{kk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e 2009 ,oa bl lEcU/k esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk Á[;kfir mRrj Áns'k fu%'kqYd vkSj vfuok;Z cky f'k{kk dk vf/kdkj fu;ekoyh 2011 ds fu;e&21 ¼3½ esa fuEuor Áko/kku fd;k x;k gS%& f'k"; v/;kid vuqikr dks cuk;s j[kus ds mn~ns'; ls fdlh fo|ky; esa infLFkr dksbZ v/;kid fdlh vU; fo|ky; vFkok dk;kZy; vFkok fdlh xSj&'kS{kf.kd mn~ns'; tks nldh; vkcknh tux.kuk] vkink jkgr drZO; vFkok laln] jkT; fo/kku e.My ;k LFkkuh; fudk; lca/kh fuokZpu drZO;ksa ls brj gks] esa lsok gsrq ugha yxk;k tk;sxkA** 23. The said Government Order has also extracted Rule 23(1) of the U.P. Rules, 2011. From the aforesaid provisions it is established that the duties of teachers cannot be sanctioned for non-educational purposes. 24. Deploying the teachers for finding out genuineness of ration cards, Antyodaya BPL Card-holders is demeaning to the status of the teachers, who enjoy high respect in the society from the immemorial period. They are asked to do these duties alongwith Class-III employees of the Revenue Department, Gram Vikas Karmi and the employees of Food and Supply Department. 25. 24. Deploying the teachers for finding out genuineness of ration cards, Antyodaya BPL Card-holders is demeaning to the status of the teachers, who enjoy high respect in the society from the immemorial period. They are asked to do these duties alongwith Class-III employees of the Revenue Department, Gram Vikas Karmi and the employees of Food and Supply Department. 25. The roles of the teachers in the society and their importance have been highlighted by the Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of School Education and others, (1989) 2 SCC 392, State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and others, (1992) 4 SCC 435 . In Andhra Kesari Educational Society (supra) the Supreme Court observed in the following terms : “20. Before parting with the case, we should like to add a word more. Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of teachers is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher alone could bring out the skills and intellectual capabilities of students. He is the ‘engine’ of the educational system. He is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values. He needs to be endowed and energised with needed potential to deliver enlightened service expected of him. His quality should be such as would inspire and motivate into action the benefiter. He must keep himself abreast of everchanging conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden and unimaginative way. He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse nobler and national ideas in younger minds.” 26. In Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (supra) the Supreme Court observed in the following terms : “12. ... The teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a principal instrument to awakening the child to the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must keep abreast of ever-changing techniques, the needs of the society and to cope up with the psychological approach to the aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal role. In short teachers need to be endowed and energised with needed potential to serve the needs of the society.” 27. Recently, the Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21-A of the Constitution and the provisions of the Act, 2009 in Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust and others v. Union of India and others, (2014) 8 SCC 1 . 28. In short teachers need to be endowed and energised with needed potential to serve the needs of the society.” 27. Recently, the Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21-A of the Constitution and the provisions of the Act, 2009 in Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust and others v. Union of India and others, (2014) 8 SCC 1 . 28. Regard may be had to the fact that the provision of Section 27 of the Act, 2009 came to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was also a member) in the case of Sunita Sharma Advocate High Court v. State of U.P. and others, 2015(3) ADJ 691 (DB). Speaking for the Bench Hon’ble Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice (as His Lordship then was) observed as under : “The right of children to free and compulsory education between the age of six to fourteen has been statutorily recognZed in Section 3(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 20091. This is in pursuance of the fundamental right conferred by Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. The Act provides in Chapter IV the responsibilities of schools and teachers. Section 27 specifically contains a prohibition on the deployment of teachers for non-educational purposes. Under Section 27, no teacher shall be deployed for any non-educational purposes other than the decennial population census, disaster relief duties or duties relating to elections to the local authority, or to the State Legislatures or Parliament, as the case may be. In view of this statutory prohibition, it is clearly unlawful and ultra vires on the part of the State to requisition the services of teachers for carrying out the verification of eligible card holding families. The right to free and compulsory education for children below the age of 14 is a constitutionally protected entitlement which is statutorily recognZed in the Act. The State is not powerless, if it requires hands for completing the work of verification by recruiting contract employees or making suitable alternate arrangements, but such arrangements cannot involve the deployment of teachers. The duties of teachers is simply to teach students. Their status cannot be reduced to that of a ministerial employee of the State. The State is not powerless, if it requires hands for completing the work of verification by recruiting contract employees or making suitable alternate arrangements, but such arrangements cannot involve the deployment of teachers. The duties of teachers is simply to teach students. Their status cannot be reduced to that of a ministerial employee of the State. It is no answer to state, as the District Supply Officer has in the counter-affidavit, that the teachers are called upon to do the work of verification as and when they are free from school duties. A teacher after the completion of the hours of work in a school is expected to spend time in preparing for the classes for the next day and to pursue his or her own process of enhancing knowledge and learning to impart education to the children. It requires no stretch of imagination to hold that burdening a teacher with duties, after school hours in carrying out ministerial duties, such as the verification of eligible families, would only detract from her ability and capacity to teach students. It is time for the State to realise, if it is serious about implementing the right to free and compulsory education for children between ages of six to fourteen in the State of Uttar Pradesh that teachers cannot be treated in such a casual and callous manner. The civility of a society is defined with reference to the value it places on education and the respect which it holds for its teachers. Those may be traditional values but fortunately, some values are eternal. The position of a teacher is a critical element in dispensing education which must be recognZed, protected and observed. Such action which has been taken by an officer of the State is clearly in violation of the duty cast upon the State. In fact, on a reading of the circular issued by the Chief Secretary on 23 January 2015, it is clear that no direction was contained therein to requisition the services of teachers. The Chief Secretary had, therefore, carefully not issued any such direction. What the District Administration has done is to follow a convenient method of requisitioning the services of teachers without the authority of law and, as we have noted earlier, it is in clear defiance of the mandate contained in Section 27 of the Act. The Chief Secretary had, therefore, carefully not issued any such direction. What the District Administration has done is to follow a convenient method of requisitioning the services of teachers without the authority of law and, as we have noted earlier, it is in clear defiance of the mandate contained in Section 27 of the Act. The State must cease and desist from resorting to such unlawful behaviour.” 29. Therefore, applying the above principle, it can be safely held that the teachers imparting education in Basic Schools, where the children up to the age of 6-14 years are receiving education, cannot be assigned duties for non-educational purposes, except for the purposes mentioned in Section 27 of the Act, 2009, i.e. decennial population census, disaster relief duties or duties relating to elections to the local authority or the State Legislatures or Parliament. 30. The deployment of teachers for verification of Ration Cards or any other purposes, which are mentioned in the impugned order, is clearly contrary to Section 27 of the Act, 2009, Rule 23(1) of the Rules, 2011 as well as against the law laid down by this Court in Sunita Sharma, Advocate (supra). 31. It appears that the District Magistrate, Banda has not considered the Government Order dated 3.9.2012 and the law laid down by this Court in proper perspective, hence the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 28.4.2017 is liable to be set aside. 32. Learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission of India v. St. Mary’s School and others, (2008) 2 SCC 390 and the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court which has relied upon the said case. The Supreme Court in the said case has considered the issue regarding utilZing the services of teachers of Government Schools for various purposes during school time. In a PIL the decision of Delhi Administration was challenged. The High Court referring the affidavit of Election Commission held that as far as possible teachers would be put on electoral roll revision works on holidays, non-teaching days and non-teaching hours. In Delhi the duties of teachers were deployed for holding general election to Lok Sabha, general election to Delhi Legislative Assembly, polling duties to MCD elections, Gurudwara election, revision of polling lists, pulse polio drive, preparation of census lists and surveys on malaria, pollution, etc. In Delhi the duties of teachers were deployed for holding general election to Lok Sabha, general election to Delhi Legislative Assembly, polling duties to MCD elections, Gurudwara election, revision of polling lists, pulse polio drive, preparation of census lists and surveys on malaria, pollution, etc. The Supreme Court referring Article 21-A of the Constitution held that the deployment of teachers can be made only for the election purpose on holidays and non-teaching days and non-teaching hours. 33. I find that issue before the Supreme Court was prior to enactment of the Act, 2009, hence the Supreme Court had no occasion to consider Section 27 of the Act, 2009. Therefore, in my opinion, said judgement is of no assistance to the respondents. Moreover, in the said case also duties of teachers were allotted only for the election purposes. 34. As noted above, Section 27 of Act, 2009 provides certificate for the election duty for State Legislative Assembly and Parliament, as mentioned therein. 35. For the reasons mentioned above, I find that the order of the District Magistrate, Banda is unsustainable and is contrary to Section 27 of Act 2009 and the law laid down by this Court in Sunita Sharma (supra). Accordingly, the order of the District Magistrate dated 28.4.2017 is set aside. A direction is issued to the respondents that in future the services of teachers should be deployed strictly in terms of Section 27 of the Act, 2009 and they should not be deployed for any other non-educational purposes, which are not mentioned in Section 27 of the Act. 36. Thus, the writ petition is allowed.