Introduction:
In an important interim order concerning the scope of governmental powers under the Census Act, 1948 and the obligations of private educational institutions, the Allahabad High Court has prima facie held that teaching and non-teaching employees of aided and unaided private schools cannot be compelled to perform census-related duties under the existing statutory framework. The Court stayed an order issued by the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS), Gautam Budh Nagar, which had directed all aided and unaided institutions to furnish details of their teaching and non-teaching staff for census work.
The interim order was passed by Justice Siddharth Nandan while hearing a writ petition filed by the Independent Self Financed Schools Association against the State of Uttar Pradesh and other authorities. The petition challenged the legality of the DIOS order that required private institutions to submit lists of their employees for deployment in connection with census operations.
The controversy arose from administrative directions issued in preparation for census-related activities. Acting pursuant to communications from higher authorities, the DIOS directed principals and managements of all aided and unaided educational institutions in Gautam Budh Nagar district to provide details of all teaching and non-teaching staff members. These details were intended to facilitate deployment of such personnel for census duty under the provisions of the Census Act, 1948.
The petitioners contended that such directions exceeded the statutory authority available under the Census Act. According to them, Section 4A of the Act obligates only “local authorities” to provide staff for census work, and private educational institutions neither fall within the definition of local authorities nor function as instrumentalities of the State. Therefore, it was argued that the employees of such institutions could not legally be requisitioned for census operations.
The dispute also brought into focus Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which permits deployment of teachers for decennial census duties. While the State relied upon this provision to justify the impugned order, the petitioners argued that the provision applies only to teachers serving in government institutions and cannot be extended to employees of private unaided schools.
The High Court’s interim observations are significant because they raise larger questions regarding the extent to which private educational institutions and their staff can be drawn into public administrative functions without explicit statutory authorization. The case also highlights the recurring tension between governmental administrative needs and the autonomy of private educational institutions.
Importantly, the Court did not finally adjudicate the issue at this stage but granted interim protection after recording a prima facie opinion that the employees of aided and unaided private institutions could not presently be treated as falling within the category of staff liable for census duties under the Census Act.
The ruling has wider implications for private educational institutions across Uttar Pradesh and potentially beyond, particularly in the context of state attempts to utilize institutional resources and personnel for public administrative exercises.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner, Independent Self Financed Schools Association, challenged the order issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Gautam Budh Nagar, primarily on the ground that the Census Act, 1948 did not authorize the State authorities to compel private aided and unaided educational institutions to provide their employees for census work.
Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, counsel argued that the statutory framework governing census operations clearly delineates the authorities responsible for supplying personnel for such duties. Reliance was specifically placed upon Section 4A of the Census Act, 1948, which empowers the government to direct local authorities to make available staff for census operations.
The petitioners contended that private educational institutions cannot be categorized as “local authorities” within the meaning of the statute. According to them, the expression “local authority” ordinarily refers to governmental or semi-governmental bodies such as municipalities, panchayats, district authorities, or other public institutions functioning under state control.
It was argued that private aided and unaided schools operate independently and are not subsidiaries or departments of the government. Even though aided institutions may receive financial assistance from the State, they do not thereby lose their private character or become local authorities under the Census Act.
The petitioners further submitted that compelling private institutions to furnish their teaching and non-teaching staff for census work would amount to imposing statutory obligations upon entities that are not contemplated under the Act. Such coercive directions, according to the petitioners, could only be justified if there existed a clear legislative mandate authorizing the same.
The Association also argued that forcing private school employees to undertake census duties would adversely affect the functioning of educational institutions. It was submitted that such diversion of staff would disrupt academic activities and impose additional administrative burdens upon private schools, particularly smaller unaided institutions operating with limited resources.
The petitioners additionally challenged the State’s reliance upon Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Section 27 permits deployment of teachers for decennial population census, disaster relief duties, and election-related work.
However, the petitioners argued that this provision was intended only for teachers employed in government schools or institutions directly controlled by the State. According to them, the provision could not be interpreted expansively so as to include teachers and staff employed by private unaided institutions.
Counsel for the petitioners emphasized that private school teachers are governed by separate contractual and service arrangements and cannot automatically be treated as public servants available for deployment in governmental administrative exercises.
On the other hand, the State defended the impugned order and sought to justify the requisition of staff for census-related activities.
Counsel appearing for the respondents relied significantly upon Section 27 of the Right to Education Act, 2009. It was argued that the provision specifically recognizes the authority of the State to deploy teachers for decennial census operations, thereby indicating legislative intent to permit such assignments in larger public interest.
The State contended that census operations are essential sovereign functions requiring large-scale administrative coordination and manpower support. According to the respondents, educational institutions have historically contributed personnel for public functions such as elections, census activities, and disaster management.
It was further argued that the exercise undertaken by the authorities was administrative in nature and intended solely to facilitate smooth conduct of census operations. The State submitted that the order seeking staff details did not by itself impose any illegal burden and was merely preparatory in character.
The respondents also attempted to justify the directions on grounds of public necessity and administrative convenience. Census operations, being national exercises of immense importance, require coordinated participation from multiple sectors and institutions.
However, during the proceedings, the petitioners countered these submissions by reiterating that administrative convenience cannot override statutory limitations and that coercive obligations upon private institutions must have explicit legal sanction.
Court’s Judgment:
The Allahabad High Court granted interim relief to the petitioners and stayed the operation of the order issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Gautam Budh Nagar, directing aided and unaided institutions to furnish details of their teaching and non-teaching staff for census duty.
Justice Siddharth Nandan, while issuing the interim order, recorded a prima facie finding that employees of private educational institutions could not presently be treated as falling within the ambit of personnel liable for deployment under the Census Act, 1948.
At the outset, the Court examined the statutory framework governing census operations and the obligations imposed under the Census Act. The Court particularly considered the scope of Section 4A, which empowers the government to direct local authorities to provide staff for census-related work.
Upon a preliminary reading of the provision, the Court observed that the expression “local authorities” appeared to refer specifically to bodies such as the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), District Inspector of Schools (DIOS), and District Panchayat Raj Officer (DPRO), who are governmental authorities functioning within the administrative structure of the State.
The Court noted that the employees of aided and unaided private institutions could not prima facie be treated as employees of such local authorities merely because the institutions operated within the educational framework regulated by the State.
Justice Siddharth Nandan observed:
“…this Court prima facie finds that the teaching and non-teaching staff of private institutions, whether aided or unaided, cannot be said to fall within the purview of ‘local authorities,’ i.e., the B.S.A., D.I.O.S., and the D.P.R.O., who alone are required to provide their staff, as also contemplated in the letter dated 01.04.2026.”
The Court also took note of the materials placed on record indicating that lists of employees had already been forwarded by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to the concerned Charge Officer pursuant to earlier communications. This strengthened the prima facie view that the statutory responsibility rested with governmental authorities and their staff rather than with employees of private institutions.
Importantly, the Court observed that employees of aided and unaided private institutions could not automatically be made liable for tasks under the Census Act in the absence of explicit statutory authorization.
The Court further remarked:
“Further, in view of the list forwarded by the B.S.A. to the Charge Officer pursuant to his letter dated 08.04.2026, the employees of aided and unaided institutions cannot be made liable for any task under the Census Act, 1948.”
Although the respondents relied upon Section 27 of the Right to Education Act, the Court did not at this interim stage accept the proposition that the provision necessarily extended to teachers employed in private unaided institutions.
The Court’s observations indicate a cautious approach toward extending statutory obligations imposed upon government employees to private institutional staff without clear legislative language authorizing such extension.
The High Court also appeared mindful of the broader principle that statutory powers affecting private rights and obligations must be interpreted strictly. Administrative directions compelling private individuals or institutions to perform public duties cannot ordinarily be sustained unless clearly supported by law.
At the same time, the Court clarified that its observations were prima facie in nature and confined to consideration of interim relief. The final legality and interpretation of the statutory provisions involved would be determined after exchange of affidavits and detailed hearing.
Accordingly, the Court kept the impugned order of the DIOS in abeyance and directed the parties to exchange affidavits. The matter was directed to be listed after completion of pleadings.
The interim order is significant because it underscores judicial reluctance to enlarge the scope of statutory obligations through administrative directions alone. It also reaffirms the principle that private educational institutions, particularly unaided institutions, cannot lightly be treated as extensions of the State for purposes of compulsory public duties.
Further, the ruling highlights the continuing judicial scrutiny of governmental attempts to deploy teachers and educational staff for non-academic administrative work. Courts have repeatedly emphasized the importance of protecting educational functioning from excessive diversion of teaching personnel toward governmental assignments unrelated to education.
Although the final outcome of the case remains pending, the interim protection granted by the Allahabad High Court represents an important development in defining the legal boundaries of state authority under the Census Act and related legislation.