Teachers assigned non-teaching duties hampers students’ education, ETEducation
Cuttack: Orissa high court has expressed concern over the practice of deploying teachers for non-teaching assignments, holding that such arrangements cannot come at the cost of right to education of students.
The court made the observation while hearing a PIL on Dec 23, 2025, highlighting that an upper primary school in Cuttack district with 112 students, is being run by only 3 teachers, including the headmaster. Bijaya Ram Das, secretary of a local organisation, filed the PIL. He was represented by advocate Anup Kumar Mohapatra.
The petition contended that teachers are frequently assigned duties as cluster resource centre coordinators (CRCCs), forcing them to remain away from schools for nearly half of every month.
Taking note of it, a two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman observed, “It has been brought to the notice of this court that the teachers are indiscriminately assigned the duty as the cluster resource centre coordinator (CRCC), and have to spend half of the month hampering the seamless teaching of the students in the school where he has been appointed. It is not a solitary incident where a teacher has been assigned such duty, but a recurring feature across the state.”
Referring to statutory provisions, the bench said, “Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 creates an embargo on the deployment of the teacher for any non-educational purposes except the one indicated therein and, therefore, the authorities cannot violate the mandate provided therein.”
Observing that the issue is not confined to a single school but appears to be a state-wide phenomenon, the court directed state govt to file an affidavit detailing the number of CRCCs, their functioning hours, participation of teachers and executive instructions issued in this regard. The matter will be heard next on Jan 13.
Though the state argued that CRCC duties help improve quality of education and teaching efficiency, the court said, “We appreciate the manifest intention, but simultaneously, we cannot overlook the fact that the aforementioned exercise cannot be undertaken at the expense of the seamless imparting of education to the children.”
The bench added that such centres could be run after school hours or during holidays, noting that dispensing with teachers during school hours “was never envisioned by the legislators”.
Source link
