Uttarakhand High Court: There Cannot Be Estoppel Against the Statute

Must Read

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Follow us

The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher at a Government Junior College in Udham Singh Nagar. Directorate of Urban Development issued an advertisement for some posts. The petitioner applied for it and got selected. She was made an offer for the post with a letter dated 13.09.2019 for three years.

The Additional Director of Education, Udham Singh Nagar (“ADE”) issued a letter dated 16.09.2019 to the petitioner. It directed the Chief Education Officer to not allow the petitioner to join the Urban Development Department without permission from the Education Department. The petitioner prays for directions to the Education Department to allow her to join the new post offered to her. Hence, this writ petition.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Petitioner contended that as a Physical Education Teacher, the provisions of Section 27 of Right to Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 do not apply to her.

Further, the petitioner had also obtained No Objection Certificate from the Education Department before making the application. It said that the Educational Department is now estopped. So, it cannot refuse to allow the petitioner for joining on deputation.

Respondent’s Arguments

ADE filed a counter-affidavit. It stated that the petitioner cannot discharge duties for any non-educational purposes. This is in Section 27 of the Act. Also, Government Orders issued by the State Government prohibit grant of permission to any teacher of the Education Department for deputation.

Court’s Observations

Justice Manoj K. Tiwari observed that Section 27 of the Act places an absolute restriction on teachers for deployment in any non-educational purposes. Thus, the exceptions under the Section do not apply to the present deployment.

The Court stated that the scheme of the Act makes no distinction between teachers based on the subject they teach. Rather, the Act also covers students up to the age of 14 years. As an Assistant teacher requires to teach up to 10th grade. Hence, covered under the provision.

Justice Tiwari remarked that there can be no estoppel against the statute. Section 27 of the Act provides that teachers cannot be deployed for any other duty which is not mentioned in the provision. Petitioner requests for relieving from the Education department for a duty not covered under the said Section of the Act. Thus, obtaining a No Objection certificate from the Education department cannot give the right to get relief from her current duty.

Even otherwise, also for a deputation to happen, the willingness of three parties is necessary. Parties here
are the lending organization, the borrowing organization and the employee concerned. In the present case, lending organization i.e. the Education Department is also unwilling to release the petitioner for going on deputation to some other organization.

Court’s Decision

Therefore, the Court concluded that there is no enforceable right for the petitioner. The deputation requested cannot stay. Hence, the Court dismissed the petition.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -