Teachers appointed under State schemes not illegal appointees—regularisation justified after long service
Case Name: Chander Mohan Negi & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 2813–2815 of 2017
Date of Judgment: 17 April 2020
Bench: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision allowing the continuation and regularisation of teachers appointed under the Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) Scheme, 2003, the Para Teachers Policy, 2003, and the Gram Vidya Upasak Yojna, 2001. The Court ruled that these appointments though outside the regular recruitment channel were made to address acute teacher shortages in remote and tribal regions and hence could not be termed illegal. Having completed over fifteen years of service and having subsequently acquired the prescribed professional qualifications, such teachers were entitled to regularisation. The petitions challenging their appointments, filed nearly a decade later, suffered from inordinate delay and lacked bona fides.
Summary: The appellants approached the Court contending that the State’s schemes permitting appointment of unqualified teachers violated constitutional recruitment norms under Article 309 and allowed backdoor entries. The Single Judge of the High Court had accepted this argument, directing phased removal of such teachers and fresh recruitment of Junior Basic Trained (JBT) teachers under the service rules. On appeal, the Division Bench reversed that decision, emphasizing delay, availability of vacancies, and the long-standing service of the appointees. Affirming that view, the Supreme Court noted that the schemes were designed to fulfil the State’s statutory duty to provide primary education under the Himachal Pradesh Compulsory Primary Education Act, 1997 when qualified teachers were unwilling to serve in difficult areas. Since the appointees had since obtained necessary training (including JBT and diploma qualifications) and served for over fifteen years, denying them regularisation would be inequitable. The Court also noted that the petitioners were unqualified at the time of appointment and filed the writ only in 2012–13, long after the schemes’ implementation in 2001–03.
Decision: Appeals dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, confirming that appointments under the State’s teacher-engagement schemes were valid and could be regularised. The Court found no basis to interfere and made no order as to costs.