Supreme Court holds para-teachers regularisation cannot bypass rules, but State must annually fill their reserved 50% recruitment quota.

Case Name: Sunil Kumar Yadav and Others v. The State of Jharkhand and Others with connected matters

Citation: 2026 INSC 462

Date of Judgment/Order: 7 May 2026

Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Held: The Supreme Court held that para-teachers engaged under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan cannot claim blanket regularisation as Assistant Teachers or Sahayak Acharyas through a writ mandamus when statutory recruitment rules govern entry into the regular State cadre. The Court held that direct absorption from a scheme-based contractual post into a regular cadre post would create a new mode of recruitment outside Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution and would be contrary to the principles laid down in Umadevi. However, since the State of Jharkhand itself had recognised para-teachers as a distinct eligible class by reserving 50% of marked vacancies for them under the 2012 and 2022 Rules, the State must give real effect to that statutory mechanism through timely and periodic recruitment.

Summary: The appeals arose from a batch of writ petitions filed by para-teachers engaged under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in Jharkhand, seeking regularisation as Assistant Teachers, appointment against vacant sanctioned posts, pay parity with regular teachers, and a declaration that the Jharkhand Primary School Recruitment Rules, 2012 were unconstitutional insofar as they did not provide direct regularisation. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the para-teachers had accepted contractual engagement and had not been appointed through the same process as regular Assistant Teachers. Before the Supreme Court, the para-teachers argued that they had served for many years, possessed requisite qualifications including TET, discharged teaching functions similar to regular teachers, and that large vacancies existed. The State opposed regularisation, relying on the statutory framework which provides a 50% marked quota for eligible para-teachers while preserving the remaining quota for open-market candidates. The Supreme Court held that the claim for regularisation could not override statutory recruitment rules, but also observed that the State could not resist regularisation on the basis of rules and then fail to activate those very rules for the benefit of para-teachers.

Decision: The Supreme Court moulded the relief instead of granting blanket regularisation. It upheld the legal position that para-teachers do not have an automatic right to regularisation or pay parity with regular Assistant Teachers merely by reason of long service under the SSA. However, the Court directed the State of Jharkhand to implement its own statutory framework by issuing notifications inviting applications exclusively from para-teachers for appointment against the 50% vacancies marked for them as Assistant Teachers and Sahayak Acharyas. The Court further directed that the filling-up exercise for the 50% earmarked vacancies be undertaken every academic year so that para-teachers receive a meaningful and timely right of consideration under the 2012 and 2022 Rules. The appeals were disposed of in these terms, with the State required to follow the schedules indicated by the Court for the current and future academic years.