The Allahabad High Court has given Uttar Pradesh four months to create teaching posts in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas, frame service conditions and consider regularisation claims. It directed payment of Rs 17,000 a month pending those steps, holding that years of insecure contractual employment on inadequate remuneration violated constitutional protections.
Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to undertake a four-month exercise to create teaching posts in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas (KGBVs) and consider the regularisation of eligible teachers, while ordering Rs 17,000 in monthly honorarium until the prescribed reforms are carried out [Smt. Archana Boodh v. State of U.P. and connected petitions].
Justice Pankaj Bhatia disposed of three connected writ petitions through a common judgment whose cover records pronouncement and upload on October 29, 2026. The directions extend beyond the petitioners to similarly situated KGBV teachers in Uttar Pradesh.
Regularisation claims must be considered within four months
Under paragraphs 71–72, the State must take steps to sanction or create teaching posts in accordance with the Schedule to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. It must also frame service conditions for KGBV teachers at par with those prescribed for regularly appointed teachers up to Intermediate level.
The competent authority must consider the petitioners’ and similarly situated teachers’ claims for regularisation against those posts in accordance with law, taking their qualifications and length of service into account. The judgment therefore requires an assessment of individual claims; it does not itself grant every KGBV teacher automatic regularisation.
The Court also directed periodic revision of honorarium or salary to bring it at par with the salaries and emoluments of teachers in State-run and aided schools.
What the teachers and respondents argued
The petitioners were full-time and part-time contractual teachers seeking regularisation and remuneration equivalent to State teachers. Some had worked for more than 15 years. They argued that repeated short engagements left them without job security despite performing comparable teaching duties, and that many had become too old to enter other employment.
The judgment records contracts lasting 11 months and 29 days, followed by a one-day gap before the next academic year. The teachers also relied on government studies, education policy and Supreme Court decisions addressing prolonged contractual employment and teachers’ remuneration.
Counsel for Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan opposed the claims, arguing that there were no sanctioned posts against which the teachers could be absorbed, that the scheme depended on shared Central and State funding, and that their tenure was tied to the scheme. The Court recorded that Union counsel did not appear for the final hearing.
Continuing work cannot be treated as indefinitely temporary
In paragraphs 51–52, the Court found no material showing that the petitioners’ work differed from that of teachers employed under State regulations. It rejected the absence of sanctioned posts as an answer: the scheme had operated for over two decades, teaching work was perennial, and Section 8(d) of the RTE Act required the State to provide teaching staff.
The Court applied the Supreme Court’s reasoning in U.P. Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association v. State of U.P., 2026 INSC 117, on continuing teaching work, deemed posts and payment responsibility. It also rejected mechanical reliance on the law governing regularisation to justify prolonged ad hoc arrangements.
The educational purpose of the scheme did not excuse the treatment of its teachers. In paragraph 58, the Court held that placing disadvantaged KGBV students with poorly paid teachers working under insecure conditions, while other government-supported schools had well-paid teachers, discriminated against those students.
In paragraph 70, it characterised years of contractual employment without steps to create posts, absorb teachers or provide equivalent pay scales as a form of forced labour prohibited by Article 23. Its reasoning also invoked equality under Article 14 and the connection between teachers’ working conditions and quality education.
Pay cannot await release of Central funds
Paragraph 73 directs Rs 17,000 per month for all KGBV teachers, including the petitioners, from the date of judgment until the prescribed steps are taken. It also extends protection under Section 24(2) of the RTE Act, which requires a reasonable opportunity of being heard before disciplinary action.
Under paragraph 74, the Centre must provide its agreed share of expenditure. Uttar Pradesh cannot postpone compliance on the ground that Central funds have not been sanctioned: it must pay and may subsequently recover the Central share.
The petitions were finally disposed of with these directions. The temporary payment arrangement forms part of that final judgment, rather than an interim order leaving the writ petitions pending.
Case title: Smt. Archana Boodh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 others
Case numbers: Writ-A No. 7335 of 2026; connected Writ-A Nos. 8381 and 9015 of 2026 (the latter filed by Reeta Verma and 376 others)
Court and bench: Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Justice Pankaj Bhatia
Reserved: September 17, 2026
Pronounced and uploaded: October 29, 2026, as recorded on the judgment’s cover
Status: All three writ petitions disposed of with directions
Source note for editorial review: The court-issued PDF’s cover records October 29, 2026 for pronouncement and upload, and its digital-signature metadata also records October 29. The closing page nevertheless prints “September 29, 2026”. This discrepancy should be checked against any corrected court copy before publication. The PDF below is a third-party-hosted copy of the court document.