We find that the teachers or headmaster of the school may be facilitated with the infrastructures and systems by which they can inform the parents/guardians of a student about the attendance and other developments with regard to their respective wards, but the headmaster and teachers whose only duty is to teach the students cannot be burdened with a duty to contact the parents individually. It is for the State Government to provide such infrastructures/systems/devices in the schools which may be used to inform the parents/guardians of the students. We are also of the opinion that for the shortage of attendance of the school on the day.
of inspection by no means the headmaster or teachers of the school may be punished by deducting their salary. Deduction of salary has got a civil consequence and, therefore, such punishment cannot be imposed only because the students were found short in attendance on the day of inspection of the school. We, therefore, find that Clause-3 of the letter providing for the penal provision is also bad in law and cannot be allowed to operate. 15. In result, the impugned letter no.6067 dated 03.08.2016 in so far as it talks of conferment of power on Jeevika to inspect and supervise the school and then provides for penal provision under Clause-3 of the letter wherein salary of the headmaster and teachers of the school may be deducted in case of shortage of attendance of the students below 75% on the day of inspection stands quashed.
पटना हाई कोर्ट के आदेश पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट की मुहर…कहा कि विद्यालय में बच्चों की उपस्थिति के लिए शिक्षक जिम्मेदार नहीं |
