‘RTE Act is child-centric, not institution-centric’: HC upholds 2024 teacher intake norms

The petitioners argued that as per the RTE Act, schools were required to have three subject-specific teachers for Classes 6 to 8, to cover science, mathematics, social science and languages. But the court found their interpretation of the law flawed

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has upheld the state government’s revised norms for appointing teachers in government schools under a policy known as Sanch Manyata, saying the new staffing pattern does not violate the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009.

(Shutterstock)

The policy, based on a government resolution (GR) dated March 15, 2024, links the number of teachers directly to student strength, mandating one teacher for fewer than 20 students, two for 20-60 students, and three for 61 or more students. A clutch of teachers, school managements and associations from several districts had challenged the GR in the high court, arguing that it improperly reduced subject-wise teacher positions in classes 6 to 8 and violated mandatory norms under the RTE Act. Many teachers also contended that the new rules would render them surplus, forcing transfers to schools without posts matching their qualifications.

The division bench of chief justice Shree Chandrashekhar and justice Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the petitions on November 14, emphasising that the RTE Act was focussed on the rights of children—not the employment expectations of teachers.

“The RTE Act is child-centric and not institution-centric” and it “manifests legislative intent to remove any financial barrier that prevents a child from completing eight years of schooling,” the court said.

The petitioners argued that as per the RTE Act, schools were required to have three subject-specific teachers for Classes 6 to 8, to cover science, mathematics, social science and languages. But the court found their interpretation of the law flawed. The schedule to the RTE Act does not mandate an exclusive set of three teachers for each individual school but for the group of classes 6 to 8.

“The interpretation of the schedule by the petitioners is misconceived,” the bench observed. “To give effect to their interpretation, the schedule should have clearly spelt out exclusive teachers to be appointed for each school irrespective of the number of children.”

On the issue of redeployment of teachers declared surplus, the court accepted the state’s assurance that no teacher would be dismissed and that all surplus teachers would be posted to nearby schools facing shortages.

“Surplus teachers shall be assigned to other schools where there is a deficiency… The apprehension that surplus teachers shall be terminated is unfounded,” the state said in its affidavit, which the court recorded.

The petitioners had also objected to the involvement of a private company (respondent no 7) in managing the transfer process, arguing that the Zilla Parishads’ core functions cannot be outsourced. The court, however, did not find a violation of any statutory bar and declined to interfere, observing that judicial review under Article 226 cannot be invoked merely because petitioners disagree with administrative policy unless a clear illegality is shown.

Several petitioners had also argued that the new norms would compel closure of divisions or reduction of teachers in small villages, affecting tribal and remote areas. The court, however, noted that the state has authority under section 18(3) of the RTE Act to close non-performing or non-compliant divisions, provided students and staff are transferred to neighbourhood schools.