The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that appointing teachers on compassionate grounds compromises the quality of education, violating the fundamental right under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution. Consequently, the Court struck down the Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 as unconstitutional under Articles 14, 16, and 21A.
Justice Ajay Bhanot emphasized,
"Merit of candidates tested by constitutional recruitment processes is not considered under the said Government Orders. This compromises the quality of teachers, degrades teaching standards, and negates children's fundamental rights to quality education."
The Court clarified that compassionate appointments are meant to provide immediate financial relief, not permanent social status. Petitioners had approached the Court, seeking appointments as Assistant Teachers based on the challenged Government Orders. However, the Court scrutinized whether such appointments align with Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Dying in Harness Rules, 1999, and the Right to Education Act, 2009.
Rule 5 requires an inquiry into what constitutes "suitable employment," considering qualifications, duties, and the broader impact on fundamental rights. The Court stressed that teaching demands a high level of expertise and knowledge crucial for upholding children's educational rights.
Read also: Allahabad HC Flags Fake DOB Claims in Criminal Cases; Urges Strict Age Checks Under JJ Act
Justice Bhanot noted,
"The transparent and competitive recruitment of teachers ensures that only the best candidates serve our children. Compassionate appointments bypass this process and deny the entry of deserving talent."
Although the Government Orders required minimum educational qualifications for appointment, they lacked a merit-based selection process. The Court found that this "culture of entitlement" violated constitutional guarantees, especially harming children's rights to quality education.
In a proactive move, despite the parties not challenging the Government Orders directly, the Court suo moto declared them unconstitutional. It ordered that claims for compassionate appointment must be considered for posts other than teaching, strictly as per the law.
The judgment highlights that while compassionate appointments serve a humanitarian purpose, they must not override the rights of citizens, especially the right of children to quality education.
"Courts cannot idly watch the violation of children's rights. They must proactively protect the constitutional mandate of quality education," the Court stated.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.
