CWP No. 12196 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12196 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: July 14, 2010 Swaran Singh and others .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing clauses 6 and 8 of the policy dated 18.06.2010, placed on record as Annexure P-4. 2. Learned counsel contends that by virtue of clauses 6 and 8 of Annexure P-4, teachers teaching Maths would be withdrawn from the school and thereby the right to education provided under “The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009” would be adversely effected. 3. On the second count, learned counsel contends that the petitioners do not know as to where they would be sent/placed once the policy provided under Annexure P-4 is enforced. CWP No. 12196 of 2010 2 4. On the third count, learned counsel contends that chart prepared in para no. 7 of the writ petition shows that Maths teacher would not be made available in the schools. 5. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 6. Annexure P-4 dated 18.06.2010 is a rationalization policy adopted by the State of Punjab for rationalizing the strength of students, teacher-student ratio etc. Clauses 6 and 8 that are under challenge read as under:- “6. In the middle schools, only B.Sc. Non- medical Science teachers be kept and under no circumstances the teachers having qualifications of only B.Sc. Medical or B.A. with Math be kept. 8. In the middle schools upto 4 sections there will be only one post each of S.S. and Science subject. There will be no separate post for the subject of Math and the Science Teacher Non-Medical will be given preference. In case of increase of strength of students and sections, the Science Teachers of Medical Group may be considered as per requirements.” 7. Under Clause 6, it has been provided that a B.Sc. Non-medical Science Teacher would be kept to serve as a teacher for teaching Maths. On a pointed question of the Court, learned counsel concedes that a person who is B.Sc. Non-medical Science qualified is eligible and suitable under Service Rules to be appointed as a teacher to teach Maths as also to teach Science subjects. In such circumstances, it becomes evident that under rationalization policy, a decision has been taken that teachers who are B.Sc. CWP No. 12196 of 2010 3 Non-medical qualified be kept to teach Mathematics at middle school level. 8. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel that Maths teachers would not be available is without any foundation. 9. So far as second contention is concerned, it is the admitted position that the petitioners are serving on a transferable post. On a pointed question of the Court, learned counsel admits that service conditions of the petitioners have not been changed in any regard. In such circumstances, the writ Court would not interfere so as to direct amends in rationalization policy drafted/framed by the Executive. 10. So far as the chart prepared in para no. 7 is concerned, learned counsel has tried to pose a hypothetical question before this Court. It has not been made out as to which school has students, however, teacher for teaching Maths and Science is not available. In this view of the matter, the argument is without any force and indulgence in writ jurisdiction on this ground is not called for. 11. Annexure P-4 is a rationalization policy framed by the respondents for shifting/transferring surplus posts of Lecturers/Masters/Mistresses and C&V cadre and surplus teachers in the needy schools. It envisages rationalization of strength of students, teacher- student ratio, providing strength of a section in a class etc. Such a policy framed by the Executive is not to be ordinarily interfered by a Court of Law on the judicial side. The executive has the expertise and relevant inputs for framing of a policy which cannot be disturbed by a Writ Court in normal course. Learned counsel has not shown that the rationalization policy/decision at issue, in any way, is in violation of any statutory provision and, therefore, also it calls for no interference. The petitioner has CWP No. 12196 of 2010 4 not been able to show any circumstance which would require interference with the said policy in exercise of writ jurisdiction. No prejudice to the rights of the petitioners/change in service condition has been pointed out so as to call for interference in this writ petition. 12. Petition is accordingly dismissed. 14.07.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?