Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of civil appeals filed by para-teachers engaged under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) in Jharkhand, challenging the High Court's dismissal of their writ petitions seeking regularisation as Assistant Teachers, pay parity, and quashing of the Jharkhand Primary School Recruitment Rules, 2012. The appellants, who had served as para-teachers on a contractual basis since 2002, argued that they performed identical duties to regular teachers, possessed necessary qualifications including Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) certification, and faced severe financial hardship due to meager honorariums and delayed payments. They contended that the 2012 Rules were unconstitutional for ignoring their seniority and experience, and that other states had regularised similar para-teachers. The respondents, including the State of Jharkhand and the Union of India, opposed the claims, asserting that the engagement was purely contractual and co-terminus with the SSA, conferring no right to absorption or parity. They highlighted that the 2012 Rules already provided a 50% quota for TET-qualified para-teachers with two years' experience, and that regularisation would violate the rights of open-market candidates. The High Court had dismissed the petitions, holding that voluntary acceptance of contractual terms precluded a later claim for regularisation. The Supreme Court upheld this reasoning, noting that the appellants had acquiesced in the terms of engagement, and that the State's recruitment policy under Article 309 was a matter of prerogative. The Court found no violation of Articles 14, 16, or 21A, and declined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeals were dismissed, affirming that contractual employment under a scheme does not create a vested right to regularisation or pay parity.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Contractual Employment - Para-teachers engaged under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan on a fixed honorarium cannot claim regularisation as a matter of right, as their appointment was purely contractual and co-terminus with the scheme. The High Court correctly held that voluntary acceptance of contractual terms precludes a later claim for absorption. (Paras 8-8.1)
B) Constitutional Law - Articles 14, 16 - Recruitment Policy - State's prerogative under Article 309 to frame recruitment rules, including providing a 50% quota for para-teachers in direct appointments, does not violate equality. The remaining 50% open market quota ensures balance and does not discriminate. (Paras 7-9)
C) Service Law - Pay Parity - Contractual employees receiving fixed honorarium cannot claim parity with regular Assistant Teachers, as their terms of engagement differ. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' does not apply to contractual appointees under a scheme. (Paras 4-6)
D) Education Law - Right to Education - Article 21A, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan is a programmatic intervention to implement the right to education, but it does not create a right to regularisation for para-teachers engaged under it. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether para-teachers engaged under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan on a contractual basis have a right to regularisation as Assistant Teachers, pay parity, and quashing of recruitment rules that do not provide a regularisation route.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment. Leave granted but appeals dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Regularisation is not a vested right for contractual employees
- Terms of engagement govern service conditions
- State policy on recruitment is prerogative under Article 309
- No right to parity in pay for contractual appointees
- Quota for para-teachers in recruitment rules is sufficient
Case Details
2026 LawText (SC) (05) 13
Civil Appeal No(s). ______ of 2026 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 4881 of 2023 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 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 7151 – 7164 OF 2023 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026 @ 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 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 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
PANKAJ MITHAL J. , S.V.N. BHATTI J.
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
Sunil Kumar Yadav and Others
The State of Jharkhand and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against High Court judgment dismissing writ petitions seeking regularisation of para-teachers engaged under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan.
Remedy Sought
Regularisation as Assistant Teachers, pay parity, quashing of recruitment rules, and declaration of unconstitutionality of certain provisions.
Filing Reason
Para-teachers claimed they were entitled to regularisation based on long service, qualifications, and TET certification, and that the State's failure to regularise violated their constitutional rights.
Previous Decisions
High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the writ petitions on 16.12.2022, holding that contractual engagement does not confer a right to regularisation.
Issues
Whether para-teachers have a right to regularisation as Assistant Teachers.
Whether the 2012 Rules are unconstitutional for not providing a regularisation route.
Whether para-teachers are entitled to pay parity with regular teachers.
Whether the State's recruitment policy violates Articles 14 and 16.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants: They served for 5-15 years, performed same duties as regular teachers, possessed TET qualifications, and faced financial hardship. Other states regularised para-teachers. The 2012 Rules and Personnel Department memo are ultra vires.
Respondents: Engagement was contractual and co-terminus with SSA. No right to absorption. 2012 Rules already provide 50% quota for para-teachers. Regularisation would violate rights of open-market candidates. State has prerogative under Article 309.
Ratio Decidendi
Contractual employees engaged under a scheme like Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, who voluntarily accept the terms of engagement, cannot claim regularisation as a matter of right. The State's recruitment policy under Article 309 is a matter of prerogative, and providing a quota for para-teachers in direct recruitment does not violate constitutional guarantees. Pay parity is not available to contractual appointees.
Judgment Excerpts
Leave granted.
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.
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.
Procedural History
The writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Jharkhand in 2016 and dismissed on 16.12.2022. The appellants then filed special leave petitions in the Supreme Court, which were converted into civil appeals and heard together.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 16, Article 21, Article 21A, Article 45, Article 300A, Article 309
- Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009:
