Nagpur : The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has issued a notice and status quo order in response to a petition filed by Nalanda Meshram, alleging that a Zilla Parishad (ZP) school in Hingna is in violation of the Right to Education (RTE) Act norms.
As per the RTE Act, one teacher is required for every 35 students in each subject category. However, this guideline has not been followed at the said school. Hearing the petition, Justice Abhay Mantri directed the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad Nagpur, the Primary Education Officer, and the Headmistress of the ZP school to submit written responses.
Gold Rate
06 June 2025
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Rigved Dhore, who informed the court that despite being notified, none of the respondents were present during the hearing.
RTE Act Violated, Says Counsel
The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the transfer order issued by the ZP CEO violates Sections 19 and 25 of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
As per Schedule 1(B) of the Act, for every class with more than 35 students, at least one teacher per subject is required — specifically for Science & Mathematics, Social Studies, and Language. The school had over 35 students enrolled by September 30, 2023, for the academic year 2023–24, justifying the need for three teachers.
Petitioner’s Transfer Contested
The petition also challenges an order passed based on Notification dated March 15, 2024 (Section 1.7, Table 3), which allegedly ignored the applicable provisions under the RTE Act. As per this order, the petitioner was relieved from duty effective May 29, 2025, and was instructed to report to ZP school at Pardasinga.
The court was informed that the Government Resolution (GR) on which the order is based is already under challenge in the High Court, which had earlier granted a status quo order in that case as well.
During the hearing, the court observed that the school had 41 students enrolled in 2023–24 and more than 36 enrolled for 2024–25 on the student portal — both exceeding the 35-student threshold. The petitioner, being the third teacher, was essential under the staffing pattern, and had not yet been formally relieved by the headmistress.
