Bombay High Court Stays Deployment Of Private Unaided, Minority School Teachers For Census Duties

The Bombay High Court on Friday (May 22) granted an interim stay on deploying the teaching and non-teaching staff of the private unaided and private unaided minority schools for the decennial census operations across Maharashtra. 

A vacation court presided over by a division bench of Justice Gautam Ankhad and Justice Sandesh Patil while granting interim relief to thousands of staff working in over more than 500 private unaided and private unaided minority schools across Maharashtra, prima facie, held that there was no 'express' obligation on the staff of such schools to be requisitioned for census work. 

"Prima facie, we find merit in the Petitioners' submission that neither the provisions of the Census Act nor the Census Rules expressly cast any statutory obligation upon the Petitioners who are employed under association of private unaided and private unaided minority schools to make available their teaching and non-teaching staff for census duties," the judges held. 

The bench refused to accept several contentions of the State raised through Chief Government Pleader Anjali Helekar, especially the argument that section 27 of the Right To Education (RTE) Act, by itself, authorises deployment of teachers employed in private unaided or minority schools for census duties.

The bench noted that section 27 merely carves out exceptions to the general prohibition against deployment of teachers for non-educational purposes.

"The said provision cannot be construed as an independent source of substantive power authorising compulsory requisition of teachers in the absence of a specific enabling provision under the Census Act itself. The reliance placed upon the definition of 'school' under section 2(n) of the RTE Act also does not conclusively answer the controversy arising in the present proceedings. Merely because unaided schools are included within the definition of 'school' under the RTE Act would not ipso facto authorise the State to divert their teaching staff for non-academic statutory functions," the judges opined. 

On the contrary, the bench explained, that the RTE Act is a child-centric legislation and its object is to protect the educational interests of children. The scheme of the RTE Act, the judges said, itself indicates that where additional duties are intended to be imposed upon teachers, the same must be supported by statutory rules.

"Section 24(1)(f) permits teachers to perform 'such other duties as may be prescribed' and section 2(l) defines the expression 'prescribed' to mean 'prescribed by rules made under the Act.' Further, sections 38(1) read with 38(2)(m) empower the appropriate Government to frame rules specifying the duties to be performed by teachers under section 24(1)(f). No rule framed under section 38 of the RTE Act has been brought to our notice that authorises compulsory deployment of teachers employed in private unaided schools for census duties. Prima facie, therefore, section 27 is not itself a source of power," the bench held. 

The 23-page order, authored by Justice Ankhad, refused to accept the contention of the authorities that the teachers and non-teaching staff can perform the census duties as the same are being assigned during the ongoing summer vacations. 

"The contention of the Respondents that the present exercise is being undertaken during the summer vacation period also cannot be accepted as an answer to the Petitioners' grievance. The material placed on record, indicates that substantial teaching staff attached to several schools have been requisitioned for census duties. This will disrupt the regular academic activities and impair the right of students to uninterrupted education. Hence, interim protection cannot be denied," the bench held. 

On the other hand, the census exercise can always be undertaken through governmental machinery, local authorities or aided institutions, which the statutory framework itself contemplates. Consequently, the balance of convenience is in favour of the Petitioners and no irreparable prejudice would be caused to the Respondents if interim protection is granted, the bench pointed out. 

Further, the bench held that the private unaided and private unaided minority schools are not and cannot be brought within the ambit of a “local authority” so as to attract the compulsory obligations contemplated under section 4A of the Census Act, which mandates 'local authority' to assign census work to its staff. 

The bench has for now, granted an interim stay on deploying the teaching and non-teaching staff of such private unaided and minority schools. However, it said that it will be hearing final arguments in the case as several similar orders are passed by the Co-ordinate benches of the High Court. 

It has therefore, ordered the Authorities to file their affidavits-in-reply to the said petitions and adjourned the matter for final hearing on July 31.

Appearance: 

Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond along with Advocates Tejas Popat, Priyansh Jain, Shamant Satiya and Sahil Panjwani appeared for the Petitioners.

Chief Government Pleader Anjali Helekar along with Additional Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan and Assistant Government Pleader Suraj Gupte represented the State.

Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Govilkar along with Advocates SK Halwasia, SS Halwasia and Sumangala Yadav represented the Director of Census Operations.

Advocates Rupali Adhate, Pratik Garde and Komal Punjabi represented the BMC.

Advocate Tejas Dande represented the NMMC.

Advocates Rohit Sakhadeo and Nitesh Rangari represented the PCMC.

Case Title: Unaided Schools Forum vs State of Maharashtra [Writ PetitiBon (Lodging) 15009 of 2026]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 267

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment