Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 203231 (ALL)

AMBIKA PRASAD v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. BASIC EDUCATION DEPTT. AND 4 OTHERS

SPLA/433/2025 · 2025-12-11

Indrajeet Shukla, Rajan Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 433 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard. 2. The appellant had filed a petition bearing Writ A No. 12758 of 2025 being aggrieved by the appointment of respondent no. 5 as full time Headmaster of the school. According to the appellant-petitioner as per schedule referable to Section 19 and 25 of the Right to Education Act, 2009 there shall be a full time Headmaster, if the number of students in a school is more than 100. There are only 88 students in the school, where the appellant is in fact present working as In-charge Headmaster, therefore, there was no occasion to appointing respondent no. 5 as a full time Headmaster. This contention has not been accepted by the learned Single Judge. 3. We have gone through the provision(s) of Act, 2009 and the schedule appended thereto. The intent of the schedule and the provision of the act is not that a regular Headmaster cannot be appointed, if number of students is less than 100. What it means is that if the number of students are more than 100 then compulsorily a full time Headmaster is to be appointed. However, even where the number of students is less then 100 in a given situation, a full time Headmaster can be appointed and there is no such bar in the Act, 2009 or in the schedule. In any case, the respondent no. 5 is senior to the appellant-petitioner, therefore, even if the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi, Ravindra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ran Vijay Singh, Ravi Prakash Yadav Ambika Prasad .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) contention of learned counsel for the appellant is accepted and the respondent no. 5 would work as In-charge Headmaster, however, that is not necessary because he has been appointed as full time Headmaster. We find no merit in the appeal. 4. The special appeal is dismissed. December 11, 2025 Raj SPLA No. 433 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench