Sunil Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand

2026 INSC 462 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 4881 OF 2023

SUNIL KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 5717 – 5729 OF 2023

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 5730 – 5739 OF 2023

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 5743 – 5753 OF 2023

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 5756 – 5766 OF 2023

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 6833 – 6837 OF 2023

WITH Signature Not Verified CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 7151 – 7164 OF 2023 Date: 2026.05.07 17:07:20 IST Reason:

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026

1 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 7812 – 7817 OF 2023

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 7912 – 7915 OF 2023

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 8292 – 8304 OF 2023

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 9422 – 9432 OF 2023

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 9447 – 9448 OF 2023

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 9511 – 9527 OF 2023

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 15303 OF 2023

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 20844 – 20845 OF 2023

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 22085 OF 2023

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 23022 – 23045 OF 2023

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 24273 – 24304 OF 2023

2 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 25930 – 25936 OF 2023

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 2140 – 2144 OF 2024

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 28250 OF 2025

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 11043 OF 2026

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 11061 OF 2026

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 11062 OF 2026

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 11063 OF 2026

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 11064 OF 2026

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 11065 OF 2026

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 11066 OF 2026

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 11067 OF 2026

3 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 11068 OF 2026

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 11069 OF 2026

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 11070 OF 2026

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 11071 OF 2026

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 11072 OF 2026

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 11210 – 11236 OF 2026

JUDGMENT

S.V.N. BHATTI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (“SSA”) is a flagship programmatic

intervention by the Government of India, operationalised in partnership with

State Governments, to achieve the universalisation of Elementary Education

in India. Its jurisprudential foundation is anchored in the Directive Principles

of State Policy under Article 45 of the Constitution of India and, subsequently,

4 the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 21A1, which mandates the

State to provide free and compulsory education to all children in the age group

of six to fourteen years. The SSA is the primary vehicle for implementing the

provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,

2009 (“RTE Act”). In the State of Jharkhand, the overarching responsibility

for implementing the SSA is with the Jharkhand Education Project Council,

an autonomous State Implementation Society. The project was a much-

needed initiative, and to fulfil its laudable aims, the State may have been

compelled to adopt innovative approaches to address the human resources

gap in employing teachers. To shorten the narrative, it is noted that the result

was the engagement of voluntary teachers/para-teachers on a contract basis

starting in 2002.

3. The para-teachers engaged under the SSA are the Appellants. The Civil

Appeals arise from the Judgment dated 16.12.2022, in Writ Petition (S) No.

315 of 2016 and a batch of similar petitions from the High Court of Jharkhand

(“Impugned Judgment”).

4. The Impugned Judgment was passed in a batch of over a hundred writ

petitions filed by para-teachers engaged under the SSA across the State of

Jharkhand. The lead writ petition was Writ Petition (S) No. 315 of 2016 filed

by Sunil Kumar Yadav and others. The batch was heard together and disposed

of by the Impugned Judgment. The reliefs sought by the Petitioners in the

Writ Petition before the High Court are as follows:

1 Inserted via the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002

5 • Regularisation of services as Assistant Teachers based on seniority and continuous service.

• Appointment against vacant and sanctioned posts of Assistant Teachers. • Pay parity with regular Assistant Teachers.

• Declaration that the Jharkhand Primary School Recruitment Rules, 2012 (Notification No. 1632 dated 05.09.2012) (“2012 Rules”) were unconstitutional insofar as they provided no regularisation route to the para-teachers.

• Comparative reference to policies of other States for the regularisation of para-teachers.

5. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions. Hence, the Civil Appeals.

6. The Writ Petition (S) No. 315 of 2016, dated 18.01.2016, was filed by

Sunil Kumar Yadav, along with seventy-five para-teachers from various

government schools in Garhwa District, State of Jharkhand. The Writ Petition

raises the following points:

• The Writ Petitioners are para-teachers who have been serving in

government schools across the State of Jharkhand for five to fifteen

years. They were appointed under the SSA to aid in the development of

education in the State of Jharkhand.

• They have acquired the necessary higher education degrees, namely,

B.A., M.A., B.Ed., etc., and have successfully passed the Teacher

Eligibility Tests (“TET”) conducted by the Jharkhand Academic Council.

• Despite their educational qualification and experience as para-teachers,

the State of Jharkhand has not regularised their employment in the

permanent posts of Assistant Teachers.

6 • There is a severe shortage of approximately one lakh fifty thousand

Assistant Teachers in primary and middle schools across Jharkhand’s

twenty-four districts. However, the State of Jharkhand is making new

appointments rather than regularising the experienced para-teachers

working as per the SSA.

• The Appellants were eligible for appointment as para-teachers and were

appointed through a selection process to perform the same duties as

regular Assistant Teachers and to work for standard school hours, i.e.,

10 AM to 4 PM or 8 AM to 2 PM. Notwithstanding compliance with the

criteria for Assistant Teachers, the para-teachers were paid a meagre

fixed honorarium of Rs. 7,400/- to Rs. 8,400/- with no additional

allowances. Furthermore, they face financial hardship because these

payments are highly irregular, sometimes delayed by six to eight

months.

• Several other States, including Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh,

Madhya Pradesh, and Assam, have already successfully formulated

policies to regularise the services of para-teachers.

• The 2012 Rules are ultra vires and violate Articles 14, 16, 21, and 300A

of the Constitution of India because they introduce a new recruitment

process that ignores the seniority and teaching experience of existing

para-teachers.

• Additionally, they challenged a Personnel Department memo restricting

regularisation to those who had completed ten years of service before

07.10.2006.

7 • Para-teachers, in fine, prayed the High Court to direct the State of

Jharkhand to regularise their services on the sanctioned, vacant posts

of Assistant Teachers, based on their seniority and TET qualifications,

and to quash the contested portions of the 2012 Rules and the

associated Personnel Department memo that took away their claims for

regularisation.

7. The Respondents, in unison, resisted the Writ Prayers. The gist of the

case of the Respondents is stated thus:

• Para-teachers were initially engaged as education volunteers (Sahyogi

Shikshak) on a fixed honorarium under community school schemes.

These centres were later subsumed into the centrally sponsored SSA.

The para-teachers were engaged by local School Management

Committees and the Village Education Committees, but not by district

authorities. Their honorarium was paid from SSA funds provided by the

Government of India and the State of Jharkhand in a 60:40 ratio.

Following the Girinath Singh Committee’s recommendation, the State

of Jharkhand amended its recruitment rules in 2009 to provide a 50

per cent reservation for eligible para-teachers in direct appointments to

regular teacher posts. Furthermore, para-teachers have been granted a

relaxation of the upper age limit to 50 years. Under Article 309 of the

Constitution of India, the framing of recruitment policies and the

identification of sources of appointment are strictly matters of State

policy.

8 • The para-teachers’ terms of engagement stated that the appointment

was purely contractual and co-terminus with the SSA. This engagement

does not confer any right to absorption, permanency, or parity with

government teachers.

• The Appellants are not being denied the opportunity to become regular

Assistant Teachers. The 2012 Rules, as amended in 2014, already

provide a specific 50 per cent quota for the direct recruitment of TET-

qualified para teachers with two or more years’ experience.

• The remaining 50 per cent of the quota under the 2012 Rules is strictly

reserved for unemployed candidates in the open market. The

Appellants, relying on their subsequent TET qualifications and years of

service, are essentially seeking accommodation within the 50 per cent

open market quota. Regularising them against this quota would

consume the seats reserved for open-market candidates, thereby

violating the statutory balance and the rights guaranteed under Articles

14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

• The framing of recruitment rules, service conditions, and the actual

hiring of teachers is entirely the jurisdiction and prerogative of the State

Government/Union Territories’ Administrations. The Government of

India has no role in the policy of service conditions of para-teachers

engaged by the States.

• The TET is strictly an eligibility-qualifying test, not a

teacher recruitment test that guarantees employment.

9 • Teacher recruitment is the prerogative of the State Government, and

the Government of India submits that it has no role in it.

• The SSA or similarly designated schemes are an additional support

program for States and Union Territories, and there are no plans to

close them.

• The schemes support the States in hiring additional teachers to

maintain the mandated pupil-teacher ratio in the schools.

Simultaneously, the Union of India restricts its role to providing funds

to meet the proportionate salary requirements of these para-teachers in

accordance with the norms of the Samagra Shiksha Scheme.

• While systemic issues such as vacancies, poor teacher-student ratios,

and single-teacher schools are real, the legal and administrative

responsibility to address them and to determine the employment fate of

the para-teachers lies squarely with the State of Jharkhand.

8. The Impugned Judgment, on an analysis of the admitted

circumstances, the alleged claim/right for regularisation, and precedents on

the point, dismissed the Writ Petitions. In the Impugned Judgment, the High

Court noted that the Appellants are not challenging the Rules as contained in

Notification No. 238 dated 14.04.2022, since the State of Jharkhand has come

out with the rule for regulating the service conditions of para-teachers in

exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the

Constitution of India. The High Court’s consideration was limited to the claim

of para-teachers for the substantive relief of regularisation.

10 8.1 The High Court held that since the writ petitioners voluntarily accepted

appointments on a contractual/engagement basis as para-teachers under the

SSA scheme, they cannot later claim regularisation as a matter of right. It

reasoned that by accepting contractual employment, the Writ Petitioners

acquiesced in the terms of their engagement, which did not, by itself, confer

any right of absorption or regularisation of services as Assistant Teachers.

8.2 Para-teachers were not selected through a process comparable to the

competitive selection process prescribed for Assistant Teachers, and

therefore, regularisation is not permissible. It is stated that Village

Education/Local School Management Committees have appointed the para-

teachers, not the District Authorities.

8.3 The High Court distinguished the judgments cited by the writ

petitioners on one or more key parameters, thus noting that their position

was not covered by precedent.

8.4 The High Court did not fix a minimum pay for para-teachers at a level

on par with that of Assistant teachers, citing the State of Jharkhand’s

financial capacity and deference to policy matters.

8.5 The High Court rejected the regularisation on the ground that the Writ

Petitioners voluntarily accepted contractual appointments.

9. We have heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Mr. Gopal

Sankaranarayanan and learned Counsel Mr. Prashant Bhushan, and Mr.

Narendra Kumar for the Appellants, and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Arunab

Choudhary and learned Counsel Mr. Krishna Murari for the Respondents.

11

10. The Appellants submit that the High Court’s view is incorrect, primarily

because the para-teachers had no choice except to be para-teachers on a

contract basis. This Court’s decisions on regularisation concerned

contractual employees who, at the time of recruitment, had no option but to

accept the contractual engagement. The High Court held in paragraph 22 of

the Impugned Judgment that no wide advertisement was published inviting

all concerned applicants. The Appellants counter this by demonstrating that

identical advertisements were issued in all twenty-four districts of the State

of Jharkhand for para-teacher posts, a procedure identical to that followed for

Assistant Teacher appointments at the District level. The Appellants, on the

High Court’s observation that due process was not followed, argue that,

firstly, no interviews were conducted for either para-teachers or Assistant

Teachers; secondly, both classes were recruited through merit lists, with the

highest qualifications/marks preferred; thirdly, the minimum qualifications

were identical for para-teachers and Assistant Teachers; fourthly, the merit

formula was exactly the same for both categories; and lastly, the appointment

process is without a selection examination. The High Court wrongly held that

the Appellants were not appointed against sanctioned posts. The Appellants

rely on the State’s own Counter Affidavit dated 21.10.2016, which admitted:

(i) sanctioned para-teacher posts of 83,595 for Primary School; (ii) sanctioned

para-teacher posts of 37,133 for Upper Primary; and (iii) vacancies persisted

even up to 2022, as per Ministry of Education records. Further, the High

Court wrongly declined to set a minimum pay, allegedly citing concerns about

financial capacity. The current wage disparity is stark. The Appellants submit

12 that this disparity is constitutionally unacceptable and utterly arbitrary. To

resolve the issue, the Appellants submit that there is a practical and

immediate solution. 20,149 sanctioned posts of Assistant Teachers are

vacant, and 12,792 TET-qualified para-teachers are available with identical

qualifications. Hence, all para-teachers can be directly appointed as Assistant

Teachers without any further process.

11. Respondents argue that the Appellants’ initial engagement under the

SSA was purely contractual and did not confer any right to automatic

regularisation of service as Assistant Teachers or pay parity with government

teachers. Further, the 2012 Rules, as amended in 2014, provide for a

dedicated 50 per cent marked vacancies for eligible and experienced para-

teachers seeking permanent employment. Their current demand to be

regularised by encroaching upon the remaining 50 per cent marked

vacancies, which is reserved for open-market candidates, is legally untenable,

as accommodating them outside the marked vacancies would unjustly

consume the open market quota, disrupt the statutory balance, and violate

the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity in public

employment under Articles 14 and 16 besides overlooking the rules made

under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

12. The State of Jharkhand, in response to a directive issued by this Court,

filed an Additional Affidavit dated 07.03.2026 setting out the vacancy position

after accounting for the appointments already made. Further, the Additional

Affidavit states that no recruitment for Assistant Teachers occurred during

the 2021-2022 period. Historical recruitment took place in 2015, and the

13 latest drive began in 2023, by which time a new regular post, “Sahayak

Acharya”, had been created. Further, the appointment process for Sahayak

Acharya under the 2023 advertisement is ongoing and has not yet been

completed. Moreover, according to the affidavit, para-teachers are actively

being appointed in both their reserved 50 per cent category (Para Category)

and the open category (Non-Para Category):

a. Class I-V: 1,667 para teachers have been appointed in the Para Category, and 2,047 para teachers have successfully secured appointments in the Non-Para Category.

b. Class VI-VIII: 1,637 para teachers have been appointed in the Para Category, and 1,950 para teachers have secured appointments in the Non-Para Category.

c. Total Impact: In total, 7,301 para teachers have been successfully appointed (3,304 within the reserved Para Category, and 3,997 who competed and won seats in the Non-Para Category). Hence, the current system is already working as intended, evidenced by the

thousands of para-teachers who have successfully secured permanent

Sahayak Acharya positions through the ongoing statutory recruitment

process.

13. The State of Jharkhand asserts that the employment of para-teachers

in SSA could, at best, be a temporary arrangement. The Union of India has

stated that it is for the respective State Governments to make policy decisions

regarding para-teachers’ services. The policy, now implemented for

recruitment or regularisation, conforms to the constitutional mandate under

Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution of India. In furtherance of the

14 policy decision of the State, a slew of statutory frameworks is put in place,

which includes the following:

• Community Teacher Service Condition Rules, 2008

• Jharkhand Primary School Recruitment Rules, 2012

• Jharkhand Regularisation of Rules, 2015

• Jharkhand Assistant Teacher Service Conditions Rules, 2021

• Jharkhand Elementary School Sahayak Acharya Cadre (Appointment,

Promotion and Service Conditions) Rules, 2022

The prayer for the regularisation of para-teachers as Assistant Teachers or

Sahayak Acharyas does not conform to the constitutional mandate. Any

direction for blanket regularisation would be contrary to this Court’s binding

precedents. The subsequent line of decisions in which this Court issued

directions for regularisation are case-specific and are distinguishable on one

or more key parameters.

14. The Counsel appearing on both sides invited our attention to the often-

relied-on citations in support of or against regularisation. It is convenient to

set out, chronologically, the overview of the precedents relied on by the

Appellants and the Respondents in the following table.

JUDGMENT CIRCUMSTANCES ADVERTED TO RATIO/PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN

STATE OF 1. Constitutional Scheme of Article KARNATAKA 14, 16 and 309: Bypassing regular 1. In Civil Appeals Nos. V. UMADEVI recruitment processes (including 3595-612 of 1999, (III)2 advertisements, competitive selection, respondents were

2 (2006) 4 SCC 1.

15 JUDGMENT CIRCUMSTANCES ADVERTED TO RATIO/PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN

temporarily engaged on a and adherence to reservation policies) daily-wage basis in the violates Articles 14 and 16, as it grants Karnataka Commercial permanence to backdoor entrants and Taxes Department in 1985- deprives qualified citizens of equal 86, in direct violation of opportunity. Further, Article 309 orders prohibiting such mandates that recruitment and service appointments. conditions be governed by statutory rules. 2. In Civil Appeals Nos.

1861-2063 of 2001, 2. Regularisation is not a mode of associations of casual/daily- recruitment. It can only cure minor rated workers challenged a procedural defects in an appointment, government order cancelling not fundamental illegalities. appointments made after 3. Courts cannot issue writs of 01.07.1984, seeking mandamus (under Article 226) or use regularisation for all such their extraordinary powers to do workers. complete justice (under Article 142) to direct the State to absorb temporary

3. The matter was referred to employees, as doing so would force the a Constitution Bench of the State to violate its own statutory rules.

Supreme Court to resolve conflicting opinions from 4. A person cannot claim a “legitimate smaller benches regarding expectation” of being made permanent the regularisation of ad hoc, if their initial entry into the service was daily-wage, and temporary temporary, casual, and completely employees. outside the established legal procedure.

5. While temporary employees do not have a right to permanence, they may have a right to equitable remuneration for work actually performed

6.The Para 53 Exception: Carved a “one-time measure” to regularise irregularly (not illegally) appointed qualified employees working against sanctioned vacant posts for 10

16 JUDGMENT CIRCUMSTANCES ADVERTED TO RATIO/PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN

plus years without courts’ intervention by the executive.

1. Temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum pay scale (lowest grade) of regular employees for identical duties, but without additional

1. Various temporary allowances.

employees working in the State of Punjab as Pump 2. In Paragraph 42 of the judgment, Operators, Fitters, Helpers, the Court delineated the parameters for Drivers, Plumbers, and claiming equal pay for equal work:

Chowkidars claimed pay A. The burden of proof lies on the parity with regular employees. They were employee.

engaged on a temporary B. Parity applies across different basis but were randomly government departments. STATE OF deputed to discharge the PUNJAB & same duties and C. Merely holding a post with the same ORS. V. responsibilities as regular nomenclature or designation does not JAGJIT SINGH employees holding automatically trigger the principle if the & ORS.3 corresponding sanctioned actual powers, duties, and

posts. responsibilities are dissimilar.

2. This Court examined D. Differences in reliability, whether temporarily engaged confidentiality, or degree of employees (daily-wagers, ad- responsibility legally justify the

hoc, contractual, etc.) are creation of different pay scales

entitled to the minimum of E. Mere identical the regular pay scale under nomenclature/designation is the principle of “equal pay for insufficient; actual duties must be equal work”. qualitatively equivalent in sensitivity, quality, and volume.

F. Differences in educational qualifications, service hierarchy, or

3 (2017) 1 SCC 148.

17 JUDGMENT CIRCUMSTANCES ADVERTED TO RATIO/PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN

management/geography legally justify different pay scales.

3. The court clarified the application of Umadevi (supra) noting that the High Court had illegally mixed up the principles of regularisation (which requires long service) with pay parity. Classifying temporary employees performing the same work into different wage brackets purely on the basis of their length of service was held to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16.

1. Appellants were initially 1. Prohibition for regularisation set out

appointed in 1991 to ex- in Umadevi (supra) did not fit squarely

cadre Accounts Clerks posts with the facts of the appellants therein. The appellants were not back under a temporary/scheme- door entries. Their appointments and based engagement. They promotions were based on specific worked continuously for over VINOD 25 years, underwent written vacancy notifications, circulars, written

KUMAR & tests and viva voce, and tests, interviews, and DPC oversight.

ORS. V. received promotions Therefore, their appointments were

UNION OF overseen by a Departmental protected under the exception for

INDIA & Promotional Committee. "irregular" but not “illegal” employment

ORS.4 2. Evolution of Employment: The 2. The issue was whether essence of employment and its their continuous, long-term service and the substantive associated rights cannot be perpetually

nature of their duties entitled determined by the initial terms of

them to regularisation. The appointment, especially when the

High Court and the CAT actual course of employment has

previously rejected their evolved significantly over time.

4 (2024) 9 SCC 327.

18 JUDGMENT CIRCUMSTANCES ADVERTED TO RATIO/PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN

claims on the basis of their 3. Employers cannot use initial initial “temporary” status. procedural formalities to perpetually deny substantive rights accrued over decades especially when respondents kept the appellants in their roles for over 25 years without ever reaffirming the temporary nature of their roles or specifying the duration of such engagement. Hence, the court directed regularisation within 3 months.

1. Umadevi is meant to prevent backdoor entries, not to weaponise the law against and penalise employees

Appellants were engaged by fulfilling necessary State functions.

Continuous, unblemished service in the Central Water regularly required tasks transforms an Commission on part-time, ad hoc arrangement into one ad-hoc terms for essential housekeeping roles warranting humane regularisation .

(Safaiwali and Khallasi) over

JAGGO V. 2. It is unjust to strictly enforce formal decades. They sought UNION OF educational prerequisites for manual regularisation due to their roles (such as cleaning, sweeping, and INDIA & long, continuous service. The gardening) that do not demand them.

ORS.5 High Court and the Tribunal Long-standing satisfactory relied on Umadevi to reject performance is sufficient proof of the appellants’ claims, ability. holding that they were part-

time and not appointed 3. Long and uninterrupted service,

against sanctioned posts. especially for periods extending beyond ten to twenty years, cannot be disregarded simply because the initial appointments were labelled as part-

time or contractual. Reinstatement and

5 (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826.

19 JUDGMENT CIRCUMSTANCES ADVERTED TO RATIO/PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN

regularisation were ordered with continuity of service.

1. An employer cannot retroactively The Appellant Workmen impose educational or procedural engaged as Gardeners (Malis) criteria to deny regularization if such in the Horticulture requirements were never applied to the Department of the workmen initially or to similarly Respondent Employer, situated past employees. Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, 2. Unfair Labour Practice: Requiring since the year 1998. No workers to perform exact perennial formal appointment letters municipal tasks (planting, pruning) as were ever issued to them, regular employees without equal pay or SHRIPAL AND and they were denied status constitutes an unfair labour ANR. V. minimum wages, weekly offs, practice. NAGAR national holidays, and other

NIGAM, statutory benefits. After 3. Umadevi cannot be used as a shield GHAZIABAD6 raising an industrial dispute to justify exploitative engagements that in 2004 for regularisation, persist for years without the employer the employer delayed undertaking legitimate recruitment, salaries and orally especially when there is an terminated them in mid-July acknowledged shortage of staff. A 2005 without notice or general “ban on fresh recruitment” compensation. cannot deny protections to workmen in de facto regular roles.

1. State as Model Employer: The State BHOLA NATH

1. Appellants were appointed has a heightened obligation to act as a V. THE STATE in 2012 as Junior Engineers fair model employer and cannot exploit OF against 22 regular vulnerable candidates; abruptly JHARKHAND sanctioned posts. The terminating a decade of service is & ORS.7 advertisement stipulated the manifestly arbitrary.

appointments were

6 (2025) INSC 144 7 (2026) INSC 99.

20 JUDGMENT CIRCUMSTANCES ADVERTED TO RATIO/PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN

contractual and the state 2. Applying the “lion and lamb” had no liability to regularise. analogy, it held the unemployed Extensions were granted till appellants had no real choice but to 2023, after which they were accept one-sided terms. The clause terminated. barring regularisation was unconscionable and legally 2. The High Court (Single unenforceable. Judge and Division Bench) dismissed the petition, 3. While Umadevi bars legitimate holding the State was not expectation for contractual workers, it obligated to grant does not apply if the contractual regularisation due to the engagement was made after a lawful contractual terms. selection procedure.

4. Prohibition on Perpetual “Ad- hocism”: The State cannot perpetually use contractual labels to outsource work and evade regular employment obligations.

1. Part-time contractual 1. Keeping teachers on stagnant, instructors appointed under meagre pay while prohibiting other the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan employment amounts to “economic

UP JUNIOR (now the Samagra Shiksha coercion” and “forced labour”. Paying a Scheme) in UP were kept on meagre amount defeats the Right to HIGH SCHOOL a stagnant pay of Education mandate . COUNCIL INSTRUCTOR ₹7,000/month for over a 2. Under the RTE Act, the State has the decade and prohibited from WELFARE primary onerous duty to pay the taking other employment. ASSOCIATION teachers; if the Centre defaults on its V. STATE OF 2. The State refused to pay a share, the State must pay first and UP & ORS.8 revised honorarium of recover the balance later. ₹17,000, arguing the Central 3. Under Rule 20(3) of RTE Rules, Government failed to release scheme teachers with requisite NCTE its 60 per cent share. qualifications working full-time must

8 (2026) INSC 117.

21 JUDGMENT CIRCUMSTANCES ADVERTED TO RATIO/PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN

be paid “at par” with regular teachers; discrimination is invalid.

15. We limit our reference to the above citations, and exclude the other

citations relied on by the Appellants as well as Respondents, namely: Govt. of

A.P. v. K. Brahmanandam9; State of UP v. Anand Kumar Yadav10; Narendra

Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand11; Sheo Narayan Nagar & Ors. v. State of

UP12 & Anr; State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee,

Munger & Ors13; Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand14; State of Punjab

v. Joginder Singh15; Zabar Singh v. State of Haryana16; M. Raja v. CEERI

Educational Society Pilani;17 S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand18;

Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Mehar Chand & Anr19; Chandra Mohan

Negi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.20; Dharam Singh v. State of UP21;

Shah Samir Bharatbhai v. State of Gujarat22; Abhishek Sharma and Ors. v. The

State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.23, since the said citations are premised

on similar principles as the above tabulated citations. We also note that no

9 (2008) 5 SCC 241.

10 (2018) 13 SCC 560.

11 (2018) 8 SCC 238.

12 (2018) 13 SCC 432.

13 (2019) 18 SCC 301.

14 AIR (1980) SC 1622.

15 AIR (1963) SC 913 16 (1972) 2 SCC 215 17 (2006) 12 SCC 636.

18 (2007) 8 SCC 279.

19 (2007) 15 SCC 680.

20 (2020) 5 SCC 732.

21 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735.

22 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1788.

23 SLP (Civil) No. 4881 of 2023. 22 decision to our notice has been brought where illegal appointments were

regularised by an order under Articles 226 or 142 of the Constitution of India.

In the above paragraphs, we have set out the State of Jharkhand’s

introduction of statutory rules. We note the constitutional commitment of the

Union of India and the State of Jharkhand under the RTE Act. In furtherance

of the obligations fastened on the State/Union, schemes such as SSA and

Samagra Shiksha are implemented as centrally sponsored schemes with

proportionate contributions from the State governments. The affidavit of the

Union of India states that the policy of framing rules for the teachers working

under the schemes sanctioned by the Union rests with the State government.

The statement in the affidavit filed before the High Court and this Court read

thus:

Before the High Court: Counter Affidavit of Kripa Nand Jha, Director Primary Education, sworn on 03.12.2016 “Para 22: That it is stated that the sources of the appointment for filling up the teacher posts in the government schools is a policy issue and the State Government is the competent authority to decide the policy in this regard.

Para 23: That it is stated that the state government has framed the Teacher Recruitment Rules keeping in mind the NCTE regulations and this Rule has been upheld by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in WPS No. 7508/2013. It is further stated that the state government is not bound to follow the policy framed by the other state governments. Para 24: That it is stated that in terms of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the state is empowered to frame recruitment rules and lay down the policy for such recruitment.”

Before this Court: Counter Affidavit of Pradeep Kumar Under Secretary in Department of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of Education, sworn on 09.12.2024 “14. Since the recruitment and other service matters of these teachers are under the domain of State Govts./UTs, the salary and pay fixation for these teachers is done by respective States and UTs and the role of Central Govt. is only restricted to provisioning of funds to meet the salary

23 requirements for these teachers as per the norms of the Samagra Shiksha.”

16. The para-teachers contend that their initial appointment as para-

teachers is pursuant to the extant procedure applicable to the appointment of

para-teachers under the SSA. Therefore, the entry into the scheme is legal,

and the procedure to which the para-teachers were subjected is substantially

the same as that under the 2012 Rules. It is apposite to note that the State’s

stance is that para-teachers were initially engaged as education volunteers

(Sahyogi Shikshak) on a fixed honorarium under community school schemes.

These centres were later subsumed into the centrally sponsored SSA. Para-

teachers were engaged by local School Management Committees and the

Village Education Committee, but not by district authorities. Their

honorarium is paid from SSA funds provided by the Government of India and

the Government of Jharkhand in a 60:40 ratio. Following the Girinath Singh

Committee’s recommendation, the State amended its recruitment rules in

2009 to provide a 50 per cent reservation for eligible para-teachers in direct

appointments to regular teacher posts. Furthermore, para-teachers have been

granted an upper age limit relaxation of up to 50 years. Under Article 309 of

the Constitution of India, the framing of recruitment policies and the

identification of sources of appointment are strictly matters of State policy.

17. The High Court, on the mode of appointment of Appellants, held that

the posts occupied by them were not sanctioned posts under the State of

Jharkhand’s establishment but were posts sanctioned under the SSA scheme,

a Centrally Sponsored Scheme funded jointly by the Union and the State.

24 Accordingly, it is an admitted case that the Appellants are not appointed

against sanctioned posts; rather, they are contractual engagees under a

scheme. Once an appointee is appointed under a scheme, there is no question

of considering them to be appointed against sanctioned posts.

18. In the instant case, the principal question for consideration is not

whether the initial entry into service can be termed irregular or illegal, but

whether the Courts under Articles 226 and 142 of the Constitution of India

can issue a mandamus to regularise the services of para-teachers as Assistant

Teachers or Sahayak Acharya contrary to the statutory scheme. Policy is

ultimately about the people, what they want and what is best for them. Every

policy question involves assumptions about human nature, in particular

about the choices that government may make and the consequences of their

choices for themselves and for society. The State of Jharkhand, in furtherance

of its policies of recruitment of Assistant Teachers/Sahayak Acharyas has

framed statutory rules. The gist of the statutory rules that enable

consideration of para teachers is reproduced hereunder:

JHARKHAND PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER RECRUITMENT RULES, 2012

REGULAR ROUTE (NON-PARA FEATURE SSA ROUTE (PARA TEACHER) TEACHER)

MODE OF APPOINTMENT Direct appointment against 50 Direct appointment against 50 per per cent of marked vacancies. cent of marked vacancies. (RULES 9, 14)

Selection based on a district-level Same as the regular route; METHOD OF merit list calculated from selection based on district-level SELECTION academic marks (Matric, Inter, merit list.

Graduation, Teacher Training)

25 REGULAR ROUTE (NON-PARA FEATURE SSA ROUTE (PARA TEACHER) TEACHER)

(RULE 21) and Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) marks.

Must be a citizen of India; possess NECESSARY required academic and pre- Must meet the same QUALIFICATIONS academic qualifications academic/pre-academic and JTET (RULES 4 & 11) (Inter/Graduation + Teacher qualifications as regular teachers. Training); and pass the JTET.

SSA CRITERIA Must have worked continuously N/A for at least two years under Sarva (RULE 14) Shiksha Abhiyan.

JHARKHAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SAHAYAK ACHARYA RULES, 2022

REGULAR ROUTE (NON-PARA SSA ROUTE (PARA FEATURE TEACHER) TEACHER/CONTRACTUAL)

50 per cent of vacancies are MODE OF Direct recruitment against reserved horizontally for APPOINTMENT vacancies identified for the contractual employees under (RULES 6 & 8) Sahayak Acharya cadre. central/state sponsored educational schemes.

METHOD OF Competitive examination Same competitive examination as SELECTION conducted by the Jharkhand the regular route, applied to the State Staff Selection Commission (RULE 8) reserved 50 per cent quota. (JSSC) or selected agency.

Citizen of India; minimum age 21; NECESSARY academic/pre-academic Same academic and JTET QUALIFICATIONS qualifications (Inter/Graduation requirements as the regular (RULE 3) + Training); and passing JTET for route. relevant classes.

26 REGULAR ROUTE (NON-PARA SSA ROUTE (PARA FEATURE TEACHER) TEACHER/CONTRACTUAL)

Must have completed a minimum ADDITIONAL of two years of continuous service SSA CRITERIA N/A on the date of advertisement (RULE 6) publication and be currently working.

Inter Trained: Pay Level-4 Same as the regular route for the SALARY/SCALE (25,500 + allowances). Graduate respective levels (Level-4 for Inter (RULE 5) Trained: Pay Level-5 (28,200 + Trained; Level-5 for Graduate allowances). Trained).

19. The prayer for regularisation is a prayer for direct absorption from a

scheme post of para-teachers to a State cadre post of Assistant

Teacher/Sahayak Acharya. This would change the character of the

appointment. A scheme post under the SSA is jointly funded by the Union of

India and the State of Jharkhand, is governed by the SSA guidelines, and

continues until the scheme ceases to exist. A cadre post under the State of

Jharkhand is governed by Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which

creates public employment, and the State must follow a constitutionally

aligned recruitment process. The direct leap from one to the other, bypassing

the statutory rules, would create a new mode of recruitment not sanctioned

by law. This is prohibited by Umadevi (supra) and the line of precedents.24 In

an attempt to cure the purported irregularity in appointment, if para-teachers

are regularised under Articles 226 or 142, it would change the source of

appointment altogether.

24 See also, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & Ors, (2008) 10 SCC 1.

27

20. On the issue of equal pay for equal work, we note that it is not an

automatic entitlement, but rather, the claimant must demonstrate that their

duties, responsibilities, qualifications, accountability and conditions of

service are qualitatively identical to those of regular employees.25 Para-

teachers, though they perform similar classroom functions, are not assigned

the full range of responsibilities of an Assistant Teacher. Further, the UP

Junior High School case (supra) directed pay parity under Rule 20(3) of the

RTE Rules for scheme teachers who are prohibited from other employment.

In the instant case, the teachers claim pay parity with Assistant Teachers,

which is inherently distinct from a revision of the honorarium.

25 State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal (2011) 2 SCC 429: “(i) The High Courts, in exercising power

under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issu a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised.

(ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be “litigious employment”. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right.

(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates.

(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees.

(v) Part-time temporary employees in Government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute.”

28 20.1 In this regard, this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ilmo Devi & Anr.,26

referred to the principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay and

concluded that “regularisation can be only as per the regularisation policy

declared by the State/Government and nobody can claim regularisation as a

matter of right dehors the regularisation policy.”

21. In the Additional Affidavit filed by the State, it is brought on record that,

in the recruitment of Assistant Teachers held in the year 2023, 1637 para-

teachers were appointed after successfully participating in the extant

appointment process for Assistant Teachers. The ratio laid down in the above

judgments notes that the direction for regularisation cannot be contrary to

the statutory rules made by the competent authority. The para-teachers,

assuming that they have been appointed under the scheme, make a prayer

for regularisation, which takes them into the service of the State Government.

For the said purpose, adherence to Statutory Rules must be insisted upon. In

the extant case, the State, in furtherance of its policy, has framed rules and

kept in perspective the principles laid down in Umadevi (supra). We are of the

view that the claim of para-teachers for regularisation does not rest on sound

legal and constitutional principles. But, the statutory scheme made by the

State has recognised a right of participation and consideration of the claims

of para-teachers, subject to the respective statutory framework. This Court is

conscious of a diabolical situation in the category of the then para-teachers,

namely those who participated in the selection process, on being meritorious,

26 (2021) 20 SCC 290.

29 are appointed by the State Government, and the para-teachers who could not

be meritorious would be appointed through a mandamus for regularisation of

their services as Assistant Teachers. In the circumstances of the case and

having regard to the statutory rules in force, the prayer for a blanket direction

for regularisation as an Assistant Teacher or Sahayak Acharya would be

contrary to the binding precedent in Umadevi (supra). The para-teachers, in

fact, have a right to participation and consideration under the extant rules,

but do not have a right to regularisation. The argument of para-teachers is

that the State has hardly issued any notifications over the past ten to fifteen

years, and the delay in issuing notifications for available vacancies would

defeat the rights of para-teachers. The comparison of similarities of duties,

etc., is to be subjected to the statutory framework and may not ripen into an

absolute right for regularisation of the services as prayed for. The above

discussion leads to the next point for consideration, whether the para

teachers are entitled to a timely recruitment and selection process under the

extant procedure.

21.1 Umadevi (supra) does two things: (i) it bars blanket regularisation by

mandamus contrary to statutory rules; and (ii) in Para 53, it carves a one-

time exception for irregularly appointed employees working against

sanctioned posts for over 10 years, directing the executive to frame a

regularisation scheme. The directions in the following paragraphs implement

the ratio of Umadevi (supra) by directing the State to periodically implement

its own statutory mechanism. We do not wish to create a right to

30 regularisation, but rather to ensure that the State carries out its self-imposed

statutory obligation by appointing para-teachers to regular posts.

22. An attempt has been made before us by para-teachers that in all aspects

and respects, they are similar to Assistant Teachers. We take note of the State

Government on the mode and manner in which para-teachers were initially

employed. We also take note of the view taken by the High Court in the

Impugned Judgment. We have the option of recording a finding either to

support the para-teachers or to support the State’s stance. However, the

circumstances are such that if a finding is recorded against para-teachers,

they may not receive what the State of Jharkhand, as part of its policy, has

agreed to provide. Therefore, while we agree with the High Court’s view, we

find it appropriate to mould the relief.

23. The complete answer to the enduring swing of judicial consideration

between irregular and illegal appointments is resolved by Umadevi (supra). It

is noted that the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments

determines the relief available to a party. In the case on hand, we find it

unnecessary to determine whether the initial entry of the para-teachers into

service under the SSA was irregular or illegal, and we expressly decline to do

so for the following reason: the question has been rendered academic by the

State's own legislative conduct. By setting aside 50 per cent of all marked

vacancies for Assistant Teachers/Sahayak Acharyas exclusively for para-

teachers under both the 2012 Rules and the 2022 Rules, the State of

Jharkhand has itself recognised para-teachers as a distinct and legitimate

class, possessing a right to participation and consideration for regular cadre

31 appointments. To ensure security of employment to the para-teachers and

simultaneously give full effect to the statutory rules made under Article 309

of the Constitution of India, we find it appropriate to mould the relief by

directing the State to activate, implement, and periodically honour the very

statutory mechanism it has itself created.

24. We are of the view that the State cannot be heard, on the one hand, to

successfully resist the prayer for regularisation of para-teachers as Assistant

Teachers/Sahayak Acharyas, while, on the other hand, not give effect to its

own statutory framework for regularisation of the services of para-teachers.

The State of Jharkhand ought not to delay in issuing a notification exclusively

for para-teachers for their appointment as Assistant Teachers/Sahayak

Acharya. For policy and practical reasons, and given the financial implications

for the exchequer, the State of Jharkhand must explore the option of notifying

exclusively the 50 per cent of vacant posts marked as Assistant Teachers

under the 2012 and 2022 Rules. The sense of security of employment is a sine

qua non for enhancing efficiency in any service, and education is no different.

The teacher-student bond is not temporary but spans the academic years.

Expecting a para-teacher, without a guarantee of their employment, to

guarantee a child's future and education is fallacious. The time has come for

the executive to conduct periodic performance audits and eliminate ad hocism

in public employment. The courts do not advise the executive, but the

executive, by putting in place ad hoc mechanisms, would affect society's

progress and the future of children. Therefore, the following directions are

issued to the State of Jharkhand to issue a notification inviting applications

32 exclusively from para-teachers for appointment to 50 per cent of the marked

vacancies for both Assistant Teachers and Sahayak Acharyas. The filling-up

exercise for 50 per cent of available/earmarked vacancies for para teachers is

undertaken every academic year, and the right to be considered is extended

to para teachers. For the above-mentioned purpose, the following schedules,

(I) for this Academic Year and (II) for future Academic Years, are directed to

be implemented by the State of Jharkhand.

I. Immediate Schedule for the Current Academic Year

Sl. Description Timeline No.

1. Determination of the total vacancies of Within 4 weeks Assistant Teachers and Sahayak Acharyas from the date of across the State of Jharkhand. The 50 per this judgment

cent of such vacancies earmarked exclusively for para-teachers shall be determined and notified simultaneously.

Note: The district shall not be the unit for appointment. Vacancies shall be aggregated and notified at the State level.

33

2. Issue of advertisement/notification inviting Immediately within applications exclusively from eligible para- two weeks upon teachers for the earmarked 50 per cent of determination of Assistant Teacher/Sahayak Acharya posts, in vacancies under Sl. accordance with the Jharkhand Primary No. 1 School Teacher Recruitment Rules, 2012 and the Jharkhand Elementary School Sahayak Acharya Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Service Conditions) Rules, 2022.

3. Receipt of applications from eligible para- As specified in the teachers. notification

4. Preparation and publication of district- As per the extant wise/State-level merit list based on academic Rules marks (Matric, Inter, Graduation, Teacher Training) and TET/JTET marks, in accordance with the applicable Rules.

5. Completion of the entire recruitment process, Within 10 weeks including finalisation of merit lists, issue of from the date of the appointment orders, and communication to advertisement the appointing authority. under Sl. No. 2

II. Annual Recurring Calendar

Sl. Description Date No.

34

1. Determination of the total vacancies of On or before 31st Assistant Teachers and Sahayak Acharyas for March the academic year. Vacancies to be calculated including:

(a) Existing vacancies as on date;

(b) Vacancies anticipated to arise during the year due to retirement, death, promotion, or otherwise.

2. From the total vacancies so determined, 50 per On or before 31st cent shall be earmarked exclusively for para- March teachers (Para Category) under the 2012 Rules and 2022 Rules. The earmarked vacancies shall be notified simultaneously with the determination under Sl. No. 1.

3. Issue of advertisement calling for limited 1st April recruitment exclusively from eligible para-

teachers for the 50 per cent earmarked posts of Assistant Teachers / Sahayak Acharyas.

Eligibility: Para-teachers who meet the qualifications prescribed under the applicable Rules (JTET/TET-qualified, with minimum two years of continuous service under SSA/Samagra Shiksha as on the date of advertisement).

35

4. Last date for receipt of applications. As specified in the advertisement

5. Preparation and publication of the merit list in As per the extant accordance with the applicable Rules. Rules

6. Completion of the selection process including On or before 31st finalisation of merit list, declaration of results, May and communication to the appointing authority.

7. Issue of appointment letters by the competent Within 30 days of authority for all selected para-teachers. finalisation of merit list

25. Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan believed that the relationship between

teachers and students is of a sacred character. He further stated that “the

kind of education that we provide for our youth is determined overwhelmingly

by the kind of men and women we secure as teachers.” It is in the light of this

elevated ideal that the present case must be understood. With the para-

teachers’ long-stated experience, the claim for regularisation is certainly a

legitimate expectation. However, whether the para-teachers deserve a regular

government post, is subsumed by the educational standards expected by the

State from its teachers and the short-term and long-term goals that the State

has set for itself in imparting education to its wards. The need of the hour is

to strengthen education, particularly at the primary and secondary levels,

36 rather than subsidising it with ad hoc measures. Providing education itself is

not the objective, but providing comprehensive, high-quality education is.

While the para-teachers desire that they be made Assistant Teachers, their

desirability is tested by the Government to provide the best teachers in the

field. In brief, the State examines the individual’s desire to determine whether

the individual deserves to hold the post. Whether this balance has been

correctly struck within the framework of Articles 14, 16, and 309 of the

Constitution of India is the central question we have answered in these

Appeals.

26. The Civil Appeals are ordered as indicated above. Pending

application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

……..……….…………………J. [PANKAJ MITHAL]

……..…………………………J. [S.V.N. BHATTI]

New Delhi;

May 7, 2026

37