Calcutta HC sets conditions for Bengal school teachers on Census duty
Synopsis
The Calcutta High Court has stepped in to protect both students and teachers: West Bengal's government school teachers cannot be assigned Census and teaching duties simultaneously, must be rotated into Census work selectively, and must be officially recorded as 'on-duty' — a ruling that directly challenges the state's mass-appointment approach.
Key Takeaways
Calcutta High Court on 21 August set conditions for appointing West Bengal state-school teachers for Census duty .
Justice Krishna Rao ruled that teachers on Census assignment must be officially recorded as 'on-duty' by the state administration.
Schools must arrange alternative teachers so that normal academic sessions are not disrupted.
Teaching and Census duties cannot be assigned to the same teacher simultaneously ; appointments should be on a rotational or alternate-day basis .
The court questioned mass appointments of teachers and advised the state to appoint teachers for Census duty selectively .
Justice Rao also raised whether Census authorities consulted the state government before deploying teachers.
A single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday, 21 August laid down a detailed set of conditions governing the appointment of teachers from West Bengal's state-run schools for Census duty, ruling that academic sessions must not be disrupted and that teachers on Census assignment must be officially recognised as being 'on-duty'.
Key Conditions Set by the Court
Justice Krishna Rao, presiding over the single-judge bench, directed that schools be informed in advance about the requirement of teachers for Census-related work. He further mandated that the schools concerned make arrangements for alternative teachers to ensure normal academic sessions continue uninterrupted.
Justice Rao also ruled that once a teacher is allotted Census duty, they must report and perform the necessary Census-related assignments without exception. Critically, the court held that teachers engaged in Census work must be treated and recorded as 'on-duty' by the state administration for the entire duration of their Census engagement.
No Simultaneous Dual Duties
Justice Rao made clear observations against assigning teaching and Census duties to the same teacher at the same time. He stated that at any given point, a teacher would be engaged in either teaching duty or Census duty — not both concurrently. The court also suggested that Census duty appointments be made on a rotational basis and, where feasible, on alternate days.
Mass Appointments Questioned
The bench raised pointed questions about the mass appointment of teachers from state-run schools for Census duty, advising the West Bengal government to adopt a more selective approach. Justice Rao also questioned whether the Census authorities had consulted the state government before deciding to appoint teachers for the purpose.
What the Teachers Sought
The teachers who approached the Calcutta High Court were not opposed to Census duty in principle. Their core grievance was that their involvement in Census work was not being administratively recognised as 'on-duty' by the state — a gap that the court's Friday ruling directly addressed. The hearing concluded on Thursday, with Justice Rao reserving the judgement and pronouncing it on Friday afternoon.
The ruling sets a precedent for how state governments balance administrative Census requirements with the educational rights of students, and how teacher service conditions must be protected during such deployments. The state government's next steps on implementing the court's directions will be closely watched.
Point of View
Regardless of the educational cost. Mass deployment of school teachers for Census, election, and survey duties has long been criticised for hollowing out classroom time — yet it persists because it is administratively convenient. Justice Rao's insistence on rotational deployment, advance notice, and 'on-duty' recognition is a structural corrective, but its impact depends entirely on state compliance. West Bengal's track record on court-directed administrative reforms warrants scrutiny. Without a monitoring mechanism, Friday's ruling risks being another well-reasoned order that is honoured more in paper than in practice.
NationPress
21 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Calcutta High Court rule on teachers' Census duty in West Bengal?
The Calcutta High Court ruled on 21 August that West Bengal government school teachers appointed for Census duty must be officially recognised as 'on-duty,' cannot be assigned teaching and Census duties simultaneously, and must be deployed selectively and on a rotational basis. Schools must also arrange alternative teachers to prevent disruption to academic sessions.
Why did teachers approach the Calcutta High Court over Census duty?
The teachers were not opposed to Census duty itself but objected to the state administration's failure to officially recognise their Census engagement as 'on-duty' service. They also raised concerns about mass appointments without adequate safeguards for their teaching responsibilities.
What did Justice Krishna Rao say about mass appointments of teachers for Census duty?
Justice Krishna Rao questioned the practice of mass-appointing teachers from state-run schools for Census duty and advised the West Bengal government to adopt a selective approach. He also raised the question of whether Census authorities had consulted the state government before making these appointments.
Can teachers in West Bengal be assigned both teaching and Census duties at the same time?
No. The Calcutta High Court explicitly ruled against assigning teaching and Census duties simultaneously. Justice Rao held that at any given time, a teacher must be engaged in either teaching duty or Census duty, with rotational or alternate-day scheduling recommended where possible.
When was the judgement pronounced and who delivered it?
The judgement was pronounced on Friday afternoon, 21 August, by Justice Krishna Rao of a single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court. The hearing had concluded on Thursday, with the judgement reserved and then delivered the following day.
