The Supreme Court of India observed that para-teachers cannot be expected to secure children’s education while remaining in unstable employment, stressing that long-term teacher-student relationships require continuity and certainty, while hearing appeals by Jharkhand para-teachers seeking regularization after decades of contractual service.
The Supreme Court has observed that the State cannot require para-teachers to secure children’s future and education while denying stability and security in their own employment. Emphasising continuity in the education system, the Court noted that the teacher-student relationship is enduring and cannot function effectively in an atmosphere of uncertainty and temporary engagement.
A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti delivered the decision while hearing appeals filed by para-teachers in Jharkhand. The para-teachers sought regularisation after working on contractual terms for over two decades under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA).
ALSO READ: Bengal Teacher Appointments || SC to Hear Pleas Against HC Order Today (April 3)
While declining to order blanket regularisation of para-teachers into the regular state cadre, the Court directed the State of Jharkhand to immediately commence exclusive recruitment drives for para-teachers against 50 percent of the sanctioned vacancies earmarked under the applicable service rules.
The Bench stressed that a sense of job security is fundamental to improving efficiency in public service, particularly in education.
The Court observed,
“…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 appeals were argued by Senior Advocates Colin Gonsalves, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the para-teachers. Senior Advocate Arunab Choudhary appeared for the State authorities.
ALSO READ: Allahabad HC Directs UP Govt to Make Fresh Merit List of 69,000 Teachers Appointment
The petitioners stated that they had been engaged since 2002 under the centrally sponsored Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan scheme, introduced to strengthen elementary education and expand school access in rural and underserved areas. Over time, para-teachers were appointed across different States on contractual terms to address teacher shortages in government schools.
The para-teachers contended that although they had rendered continuous service for more than 20 years and obtained Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualifications, they continued to be treated as contractual employees. They argued they did not receive regular pay scales or service benefits equivalent to those of Assistant Teachers, even while performing duties said to be identical to those of regular teachers. They therefore claimed they deserved regularisation.
Earlier, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions on December 16, 2022. The High Court held that contractual employees do not automatically or inherently acquire a right to regularisation unless their appointment was made through a regular competitive recruitment process.
Challenging that ruling, the para-teachers approached the Supreme Court and argued that their long tenure and experience created a legitimate expectation that the State would absorb them into regular service.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that positions created under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan are scheme-based and distinct from cadre posts governed by Article 309 of the Constitution. As a result, direct regularisation into the State cadre without adhering to statutory recruitment rules would conflict with the principles laid down in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1.
The Bench observed,
“…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. 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”,
At the same time, the Court strongly criticised the State for opposing regularisation claims while not implementing its own statutory framework under the 2012 and 2022 Rules, which reserves 50 percent of vacancies for para-teachers.
READ ALSO: Tripura’s 700 Teachers Challenge ‘Unlawful’ Termination Orders in Supreme Court
The Court said,
“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 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 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…”,
To ensure compliance and avoid further delay, the Bench issued a mandatory annual recruitment calendar. The State was directed to determine vacancies by March 31 each year and initiate the recruitment process for para-teachers beginning April 1.
For the current academic year, the Court directed the State to identify vacancies within four weeks and issue advertisements within the next two weeks. It further required that the full selection process including appointment orders based on academic qualifications and TET merit be completed within 10 weeks from the date of advertisement.
The Court also underlined the wider role of teachers in society and referred to the views of former President and philosopher Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan on the value of quality education and stable teaching systems.
The judgment stated,
“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…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…”,
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Yadav and Others v. The State of Jharkhand and Others
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE