Supreme Court Upholds Regularization of Teachers Appointed Under Himachal Pradesh Schemes (2020)

Date of the Judgment: April 17, 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 389

Judges: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice R. Subhash Reddy

Can long-serving teachers appointed under special government schemes be denied regularization, even if their initial appointments were not strictly in accordance with recruitment rules? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning teachers appointed under various schemes in Himachal Pradesh. This judgment examines the balance between adhering to strict recruitment procedures and acknowledging the practical realities of staffing remote schools. The bench comprised Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, with the judgment authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The case revolves around appointments made by the Government of Himachal Pradesh under three schemes: The Himachal Pradesh Prathmik Sahayak Adhyapak/Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) Scheme, The Himachal Pradesh Para Teachers Policy, 2003, and the Himachal Pradesh Gram Vidya Upasak Yojna, 2001. These schemes were introduced to fill vacant teaching positions across various categories.

The initial appointments were made in 2001 and 2003. However, in 2012, three individuals, Chander Mohan Negi, Rajiv Chauhan, and Rakesh Kumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. They sought directions to fill the vacant Junior Basic Trained (JBT) teacher positions according to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. They also requested a restraint on regularizing the Primary Assistant Teachers, arguing that their appointments violated constitutional norms and established legal principles.

The petitioners argued that the appointments under these schemes were made without adhering to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, and that qualified candidates were available at the time. They contended that these appointments were a “back door entry” and diluted educational standards.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The learned Single Judge of the High Court, on October 18, 2012, ruled in favor of the petitioners. The judge directed the State to phase out teachers appointed under the Primary Assistant Teacher Scheme, citing that these appointments were made without adhering to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The court also prohibited the State from regularizing these teachers.

Aggrieved by the Single Judge’s order, the affected teachers, their associations, and the State of Himachal Pradesh filed Letters Patent Appeals. The Division Bench of the High Court, in a common judgment dated December 9, 2014, overturned the Single Judge’s decision. The Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions, citing reasons such as the delay in filing the petitions, the lack of challenge to the appointments at the relevant time, and the State’s justification for making these appointments due to a lack of qualified teachers in remote areas.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. These rules govern the recruitment and promotion of teachers in the state of Himachal Pradesh. The core issue is whether the appointments made under the various schemes adhere to these rules.

The Himachal Pradesh Compulsory Primary Education Act, 1997, was also a key part of the legal framework. The State argued that the schemes were designed to achieve the goals of this Act by ensuring 100% enrollment of children in schools, especially in remote and difficult areas.

The relevant rules include:

• The Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class-III (School and Inspection Cadre) Service Rules, 1973, which prescribes the qualifications for teachers.
• The Himachal Pradesh Prathmik Sahayak Adhyapak/Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) Scheme, 2003.
• The Himachal Pradesh Para Teachers (Lecturer School Cadre), Para Teachers (TGT’s) and Para Teachers (C&V) Policy, 2003.
• The Himachal Pradesh Gram Vidya Upasak Yojna, 2001.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that the appointments under the various schemes were contrary to the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
• They contended that qualified candidates were available, and the appointments were made through a “back door method.”
• The appellants asserted that the appointed teachers were not qualified and could not be regularized, as this would dilute educational standards.
• They argued that the appointments were made without adhering to the rule of reservation as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules.
• The appellants relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in cases such as J & K Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors. [1994 (2) SCC 630]*, Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. [2006 (4) SCC 1]*, Accounts Officer (A&I) A.P.SRTC & Ors. v. P. Chandra Sekhara Rao & Ors. [2006 (7) SCC 488]*, and Punjab State Warehousing Corpn., Chandigarh v. Manmohan Singh & Anr. [2007 (9) SCC 337]*, to support their argument that appointees made contrary to rules cannot be regularized.

Arguments of the Respondents:

• The State of Himachal Pradesh argued that the Primary Assistant Teachers Scheme of 2003 was necessary due to the non-availability of trained teachers in remote and backward areas.
• They stated that the scheme aimed to achieve compulsory enrollment of children in schools as per The Himachal Pradesh Compulsory Primary Education Act, 1997.
• The State submitted that the appointments were made on a monthly remuneration of Rs.2000/-, which was increased to Rs.8900/- in July 2013.
• The State submitted that the Para Teachers Policy was also necessary due to the large number of vacancies and the halt in the selection process by the State Selection Subordinate Board, Hamirpur.
• The State contended that all the Para Teachers were qualified as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules.
• The respondents also argued that many teachers had acquired professional qualifications, such as a diploma in elementary education, or had undergone Professional Development Programme for Elementary Teachers.
• The respondents argued that the appointees had completed long years of service and could not be denied regularization.
• The respondents emphasized the topography of the state and the need to fill single-teacher schools, which necessitated the schemes.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues that the court addressed were:

1. Whether the appointments made under the various schemes by the Government of Himachal Pradesh were contrary to the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the appointees under the schemes were qualified and could be regularized, considering their long service and the initial conditions against regularization.
3. Whether the delay in filing the writ petitions and the absence of a rejoinder by the petitioners impacted their claims.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The judgments relied upon by the appellants, such as J & K Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors. [1994 (2) SCC 630]*, Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. [2006 (4) SCC 1]*, Accounts Officer (A&I) A.P.SRTC & Ors. v. P. Chandra Sekhara Rao & Ors. [2006 (7) SCC 488]*, and Punjab State Warehousing Corpn., Chandigarh v. Manmohan Singh & Anr. [2007 (9) SCC 337]*, were distinguished by the Court. The Court held that those cases did not apply to the unique facts of this case, where the State had framed schemes to meet the immediate need for teachers in remote areas.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Long service of the appointees: The Court noted that the appointees had served for almost 15 years, and it would be unfair to deny them regularization at this stage.
• Acquisition of professional qualifications: Many of the appointees had acquired professional qualifications, such as a diploma in elementary education, or had undergone Professional Development Programme for Elementary Teachers.
• State’s explanation for the schemes: The Court accepted the State’s explanation that the schemes were necessary to meet the immediate need for teachers in remote areas and to achieve the goals of The Himachal Pradesh Compulsory Primary Education Act, 1997.
• Belated filing of writ petitions: The Court found that the writ petitions were filed after an inordinate delay of about 10 years, and the petitioners had not filed a rejoinder to controvert the State’s claims.
• Meagre salaries: The Court noted that the appointees were working for meagre salaries and deserved regularization.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court placed more emphasis on the factual aspects of the case, such as the long service of the appointees and the State’s explanation for the schemes, than on strict legal interpretations.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the practical realities and the need to ensure that schools in remote areas were adequately staffed. The court also considered the fact that the appointees had served for a long time and had acquired the necessary qualifications. This led to the court’s conclusion that the appointments were irregular, not illegal, and that the appointees deserved regularization.

The court did not consider any alternative interpretations. The court’s reasoning was focused on the specific facts of the case and the need to balance the interests of the appointees with the need to maintain educational standards.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice R. Subhash Reddy, and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar concurred with the same. There were no dissenting opinions.

The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. The decision was based on the specific facts of the case and the existing legal framework.

The court’s decision emphasizes the importance of considering the practical realities and the need to balance the interests of all parties involved, while also adhering to the rule of law.

“In that view of the matter, we are of the view that when the appointees appointed under the scheme have completed more than almost 15 years of service now and also have acquired the professional qualifications, they cannot be denied regularisation at this point of time.”

“As the appointments were made as per the schemes notified by the Government such appointments cannot be treated as illegal, if at all they can be considered irregular.”

“Having regard to nature of such appointments, appointments made as per policies cannot be termed as illegal.”

Key Takeaways

• Long service and acquisition of professional qualifications can be considered valid grounds for regularization of appointees.
• State governments have the flexibility to frame schemes to meet immediate needs, especially in difficult circumstances.
• Courts may consider the practical realities and the need to balance the interests of all parties involved.
• Belated filing of petitions and lack of rejoinders can weaken a petitioner’s case.
• Appointments made under government schemes, even if initially irregular, may be regularized if the appointees have served for a long time and have acquired the necessary qualifications.

The judgment may have implications for future cases involving regularization of temporary employees, particularly in situations where the State has framed schemes to meet immediate needs. It also highlights the importance of timely action in challenging government policies and appointments.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this case. The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s decision to allow the regularization of the teachers.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that appointments made under government schemes, even if initially irregular, may be regularized if the appointees have served for a long time, have acquired the necessary qualifications, and the State has a valid reason for framing such schemes. This judgment does not change the existing law, but it clarifies the circumstances under which regularization can be allowed. It emphasizes the importance of considering the specific facts of each case and the need to balance the interests of all parties involved.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision to allow the regularization of teachers appointed under various schemes by the Himachal Pradesh government. The Court emphasized the long service of the appointees, their acquisition of professional qualifications, and the State’s explanation for framing the schemes. The judgment highlights the importance of balancing legal principles with the practical realities of governance and the need to ensure that schools in remote areas are adequately staffed. The court also noted that the writ petitions were filed after an inordinate delay and that the petitioners had not filed a rejoinder to controvert the State’s claims.