September 7, 2026 (1111) (M/L) ARDR IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 12828 of 2026 Dipak Kumar Das & ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. Mr. Sagar Bandhopadhyay, Sr. Adv., Mr. Debdatta Saha, Mr. Subhamoy Dewanji, …for the petitioners. Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee, Mr. Swarvanu Saha, Mr. Atanu Basu, Mr. Rajen Dutta, Ms. Sutapa Upadhyay, …for the State. 1. By the present writ petition the petitioners seek for setting aside and/or cancellation of the memo no.1184/ SW(DW) dated 29th May, 2026 issued by the District Magistrate, North 24 Parganas, respondent no.4 for Family Level Data Collection for implementation of ‘Annapurna Yojana’. 2. The petitioners contend that they are Assistant Teachers of different primary schools under the District Primary School Council (in short ‘DPSC’), North 24 Parganas. The petitioners were appointed as Booth Level Officers (in short ‘BLO’) and were allocated election related duties like Special Intensive Revision (in short ‘SIR’) of electoral rolls of voters for State Legislative Assembly Election. The petitioners have been allotted the job for family level data collection for ‘Annapurna Yojana’ by dint of the said impugned memo. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such memorandum, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 2 3. Mr. Sagar Bandhopadhyay, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submit that the primary job of the petitioners being the primary teachers is to impart education. The only exception is being carved out in Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RTE Act’) which provides for deployment of teachers for non- educational purpose such as census, disaster relief duties or duties relating to election to the local authority or State Legislature or Parliament, as the case may be. The petitioners being the primary teachers cannot be deployed for data collection of ‘Annapurna Yojana’. Further, referring to the guideline of the Election Commission of India dated 4th October, 2022, he submits that before deploying the teachers the other categories of employees mentioned in Election Guideline no.1.5d have to be exhausted. In other words, the appointment of BLOs or assignment of election duties shall be first made from the pool of categories of employees depicted in Election Guideline no.1.2 except for teachers. The position of a teacher is a critical element in dispensing education which must be recognized and such duties of data collection should not be given to the primary school teachers who are solely appointed to impart education to the children. To buttress his contention, he relies on the following decisions: (i) Election Commission of India versus St. Mary’s School and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 390; (ii) Sutantra Haldar versus State of West Bengal and others reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 15250; 3 (iii) Sunita Sharma, Advocate, High Court and another versus State of U.P. and three others regarding Public Interest Litigation (PIL) no. 11028 of 2015; and (iv) Surya Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine All. 601. In light of his aforesaid submissions, he seeks for setting aside of the impugned memo dated 29th May, 2026 issued by respondent no.4. 4. On the contrary, Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee learned Advocate for the State submits that after much deliberation on 19th May, 2026, it was decided by the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal that since the BLOs were appointed for SIR of electoral rolls and are accustomed with the family data collection, they may be deployed for collection of such data for implementation of ‘Annapurna Yojana’ which was scheduled to roll out on 1st June, 2026. Such arrangement is a stop gap arrangement to expedite social scheme of the Government under the ‘Annapurna Yojana’. The State has mostly deployed Anganwadi workers under ICDS. The work of data collection for ‘Annapurna Yojana’ has almost been completed. It is not only the teachers but other government employees, who discharged their function as BLOs, has also been requisitioned for the purpose of data collection and implementation of the scheme. The duty of petitioners has also been made to be treated as ‘On Duty’. Therefore, there cannot be any grievance on the part of the petitioners in discharging such functions. Since the implementation of ‘Annapurna Yojana’ has a direct 4 bearing with the SIR process initiated prior to the State Assembly Election the State authorities for expeditious implementation of the social scheme has taken recourse to the services of the BLOs, which is an administrative decision and, therefore, should not be interfered with. He further indicates that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are factually distinguishable and has not been passed in the backdrop of any SIR process been undertaken. He seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties the only issue which falls for consideration is whether the respondent no.4 the District Magistrate, was justified for issuing the impugned memo dated 29th May, 2026 deploying the petitioners/teachers, who were BLOs, for implementation of process of Family Level Data Collection for ‘Annapurna Yojana’. 6. Undeniably the petitioners are primary school teachers who were appointed as BLOs prior to the State Assembly Election and by dint of the memo under challenge they are called upon to collect Family Level Data for ‘Annapurna Yojana’. 7. In order to examine the issue it would be apposite to note that right of children to free and compulsory education between the age of 6 to 14 years has been statutorily recognized under Section 3(1) of the RTE Act, 2009 in pursuance to the fundamental right conferred by Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. Chapter IV of the RTE Act, 2009 provides for the responsibility of the school and teachers. Section 27 contains a prohibition on the 5 deployment of teachers for non-educational purposes. Under Section 27 of RTE Act, 2009, no teacher shall be deployed for any non-educational purpose other than decennial population census, disasters relief duties or duties relating to elections to local authority or State Legislature or Parliament as the case may be. There cannot be any quarrel that the duties which has been assigned by the impugned memo is beyond the scope and ambit of Section 27 of the RTE Act. Thus, it leaves no manner of doubt that such deployment is de hors the provision of the RTE Act, 2009. In the above conspectus, this Court finds substance in the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners in this regard relying on the decisions noted hereinabove. 8. In the light of above discussion, the impugned memo No. 1184/SW(DW) dated 29th May, 2026 of respondent no.4, District Magistrate, North 24 Parganas is hereby set aside so far as it applies to the petitioners. Consequential orders of assignment of petitioners passed also stand withdrawn. 9. The writ petition being WPA 12828 of 2026 accordingly stands disposed of. 10. Since no affidavits have been used the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to be admitted. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 12. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 14. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 15. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)