Sunil Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand

2026 INSC 462
NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 4881 OF 2023

SUNIL KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS … APPELLANT(S)


VERSUS


THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT(S)


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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
GEETA AHUJA
Date: 2026.05.07
17:07:20 IST
Reason:

WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). _________ OF 2026
1

@ 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



2

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
3

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


J U D G M E N T

S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (“SSA”) is a flagship programmatic
intervention by the Government of India, operationalised in partnership with
State Governments, to achieve the universalisation of Elementary Education
in India. Its jurisprudential foundation is anchored in the Directive Principles
of State Policy under Article 45 of the Constitution of India and, subsequently,
4

1
the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 21A , which mandates the
State to provide free and compulsory education to all children in the age group
of six to fourteen years. The SSA is the primary vehicle for implementing the
provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 (“RTE Act”). In the State of Jharkhand, the overarching responsibility
for implementing the SSA is with the Jharkhand Education Project Council,
an autonomous State Implementation Society. The project was a much-
needed initiative, and to fulfil its laudable aims, the State may have been
compelled to adopt innovative approaches to address the human resources
gap in employing teachers. To shorten the narrative, it is noted that the result
was the engagement of voluntary teachers/ para-teachers on a contract basis
starting in 2002.
3. The para-teachers engaged under the SSA are the Appellants. The Civil
Appeals arise from the Judgment dated 16.12.2022, in Writ Petition (S) No.
315 of 2016 and a batch of similar petitions from the High Court of Jharkhand
(“Impugned Judgment”).
4. The Impugned Judgment was passed in a batch of over a hundred writ
petitions filed by para-teachers engaged under the SSA across the State of
Jharkhand. The lead writ petition was Writ Petition (S) No. 315 of 2016 filed
by Sunil Kumar Yadav and others . The batch was heard together and disposed
of by the Impugned Judgment. The reliefs sought by the Petitioners in the
Writ Petition before the High Court are as follows:

1 th
Inserted via the 86 Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002

5

• Regularisation of services as Assistant Teachers based on seniority and
continuous service.
• Appointment against vacant and sanctioned posts of Assistant Teachers.
• Pay parity with regular Assistant Teachers.
• Declaration that the Jharkhand Primary School Recruitment Rules, 2012
(Notification No. 1632 dated 05.09.2012) (“2012 Rules”) were
unconstitutional insofar as they provided no regularisation route to the
para-teachers .
• Comparative reference to policies of other States for the regularisation of
para-teachers .

5. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions. Hence, the Civil Appeals.
6. The Writ Petition (S) No. 315 of 2016, dated 18.01.2016, was filed by
Sunil Kumar Yadav, along with seventy-five para-teachers from various
government schools in Garhwa District, State of Jharkhand. The Writ Petition
raises the following points:
• The Writ Petitioners are para-teachers who have been serving in
government schools across the State of Jharkhand for five to fifteen
years. They were appointed under the SSA to aid in the development of
education in the State of Jharkhand.
•
They have acquired the necessary higher education degrees, namely,
B.A., M.A., B.Ed., etc., and have successfully passed the Teacher
Eligibility Tests (“TET”) conducted by the Jharkhand Academic Council.
• Despite their educational qualification and experience as para-teachers ,
the State of Jharkhand has not regularised their employment in the
permanent posts of Assistant Teachers.
6

• There is a severe shortage of approximately one lakh fifty thousand
Assistant Teachers in primary and middle schools across Jharkhand’s
twenty-four districts. However, the State of Jharkhand is making new
appointments rather than regularising the experienced para-teachers
working as per the SSA.
• The Appellants were eligible for appointment as para-teachers and were
appointed through a selection process to perform the same duties as
regular Assistant Teachers and to work for standard school hours, i.e.,
10 AM to 4 PM or 8 AM to 2 PM. Notwithstanding compliance with the
criteria for Assistant Teachers, the para-teachers were paid a meagre
fixed honorarium of Rs. 7,400/- to Rs. 8,400/- with no additional
allowances. Furthermore, they face financial hardship because these
payments are highly irregular, sometimes delayed by six to eight
months.
• Several other States, including Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh, and Assam, have already successfully formulated
policies to regularise the services of para-teachers .
•
The 2012 Rules are ultra vires and violate Articles 14, 16, 21, and 300A
of the Constitution of India because they introduce a new recruitment
process that ignores the seniority and teaching experience of existing
para-teachers .
• Additionally, they challenged a Personnel Department memo restricting
regularisation to those who had completed ten years of service before
07.10.2006.
7

• Para-teachers , in fine, prayed the High Court to direct the State of
Jharkhand to regularise their services on the sanctioned, vacant posts
of Assistant Teachers, based on their seniority and TET qualifications,
and to quash the contested portions of the 2012 Rules and the
associated Personnel Department memo that took away their claims for
regularisation.

7. The Respondents, in unison, resisted the Writ Prayers. The gist of the
case of the Respondents is stated thus:
• Para-teachers were initially engaged as education volunteers (Sahyogi
Shikshak) on a fixed honorarium under community school schemes.
These centres were later subsumed into the centrally sponsored SSA.
The para-teachers were engaged by local School Management
Committees and the Village Education Committees, but not by district
authorities. Their honorarium was paid from SSA funds provided by the
Government of India and the State of Jharkhand in a 60:40 ratio.
Following the Girinath Singh Committee’s recommendation, the State
of Jharkhand amended its recruitment rules in 2009 to provide a 50
per cent reservation for eligible para-teachers in direct appointments to
regular teacher posts. Furthermore, para-teachers have been granted a
relaxation of the upper age limit to 50 years. Under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India, the framing of recruitment policies and the
identification of sources of appointment are strictly matters of State
policy.
8

• The para-teachers’ terms of engagement stated that the appointment
was purely contractual and co-terminus with the SSA. This engagement
does not confer any right to absorption, permanency, or parity with
government teachers.
• The Appellants are not being denied the opportunity to become regular
Assistant Teachers. The 2012 Rules, as amended in 2014, already
provide a specific 50 per cent quota for the direct recruitment of TET-
qualified para teachers with two or more years’ experience.
• The remaining 50 per cent of the quota under the 2012 Rules is strictly
reserved for unemployed candidates in the open market. The
Appellants, relying on their subsequent TET qualifications and years of
service, are essentially seeking accommodation within the 50 per cent
open market quota. Regularising them against this quota would
consume the seats reserved for open-market candidates, thereby
violating the statutory balance and the rights guaranteed under Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
•
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. The Government of
India has no role in the policy of service conditions of para-teachers
engaged by the States.
• The TET is strictly an eligibility-qualifying test, not a
teacher recruitment test that guarantees employment.
9

• Teacher recruitment is the prerogative of the State Government, and
the Government of India submits that it has no role in it.
•
The SSA or similarly designated schemes are an additional support
program for States and Union Territories, and there are no plans to
close them.
• The schemes support the States in hiring additional teachers to
maintain the mandated pupil-teacher ratio in the schools.
Simultaneously, the Union of India restricts its role to providing funds
to meet the proportionate salary requirements of these para-teachers in
accordance with the norms of the Samagra Shiksha Scheme.
• While systemic issues such as vacancies, poor teacher-student ratios,
and single-teacher schools are real, the legal and administrative
responsibility to address them and to determine the employment fate of
the para-teachers lies squarely with the State of Jharkhand.
8. The Impugned Judgment, on an analysis of the admitted
circumstances, the alleged claim/right for regularisation, and precedents on
the point, dismissed the Writ Petitions. In the Impugned Judgment, the High
Court noted that the Appellants are not challenging the Rules as contained in
Notification No. 238 dated 14.04.2022, since the State of Jharkhand has come
out with the rule for regulating the service conditions of para-teachers in
exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. The High Court’s consideration was limited to the claim
of para-teachers for the substantive relief of regularisation.
10

8.1 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. It
reasoned that by accepting contractual employment, the Writ Petitioners
acquiesced in the terms of their engagement, which did not, by itself, confer
any right of absorption or regularisation of services as Assistant Teachers.
8.2 Para-teachers were not selected through a process comparable to the
competitive selection process prescribed for Assistant Teachers, and
therefore, regularisation is not permissible. It is stated that Village
Education/Local School Management Committees have appointed the para-
teachers , not the District Authorities.

8.3 The High Court distinguished the judgments cited by the writ
petitioners on one or more key parameters, thus noting that their position
was not covered by precedent.
8.4 The High Court did not fix a minimum pay for para-teachers at a level
on par with that of Assistant teachers, citing the State of Jharkhand’s
financial capacity and deference to policy matters.
8.5 The High Court rejected the regularisation on the ground that the Writ
Petitioners voluntarily accepted contractual appointments.
9. We have heard learned Senior Counsel, 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.
11

10. The Appellants submit that the High Court’s view is incorrect, primarily
because the para-teachers had no choice except to be para-teachers on a
contract basis. This Court’s decisions on regularisation concerned
contractual employees who, at the time of recruitment, had no option but to
accept the contractual engagement. The High Court held in paragraph 22 of
the Impugned Judgment that no wide advertisement was published inviting
all concerned applicants. The Appellants counter this by demonstrating that
identical advertisements were issued in all twenty-four districts of the State
of Jharkhand for para-teacher posts, a procedure identical to that followed for
Assistant Teacher appointments at the District level. The Appellants, on the
High Court’s observation that due process was not followed, argue that,
firstly, no interviews were conducted for either para-teachers or Assistant
Teachers; secondly, both classes were recruited through merit lists, with the
highest qualifications/marks preferred; thirdly, the minimum qualifications
were identical for para-teachers and Assistant Teachers; fourthly, the merit
formula was exactly the same for both categories; and lastly, the appointment
process is without a selection examination. The High Court wrongly held that
the Appellants were not appointed against sanctioned posts. The Appellants
rely on the State’s own Counter Affidavit dated 21.10.2016, which admitted:
(i) sanctioned para-teacher posts of 83,595 for Primary School; (ii) sanctioned
para-teacher posts of 37,133 for Upper Primary; and (iii) vacancies persisted
even up to 2022, as per Ministry of Education records. Further, the High
Court wrongly declined to set a minimum pay, allegedly citing concerns about
financial capacity. The current wage disparity is stark. The Appellants submit
12

that this disparity is constitutionally unacceptable and utterly arbitrary. To
resolve the issue, the Appellants submit that there is a practical and
immediate solution. 20,149 sanctioned posts of Assistant Teachers are
vacant, and 12,792 TET-qualified para-teachers are available with identical
qualifications. Hence, all para-teachers can be directly appointed as Assistant
Teachers without any further process.
11. Respondents argue that the Appellants’ initial engagement under the
SSA was purely contractual and did not confer any right to automatic
regularisation of service as Assistant Teachers or pay parity with government
teachers. Further, the 2012 Rules, as amended in 2014, provide for a
dedicated 50 per cent marked vacancies for eligible and experienced para-
teachers seeking permanent employment. Their current demand to be
regularised by encroaching upon the remaining 50 per cent marked
vacancies, which is reserved for open-market candidates, is legally untenable,
as accommodating them outside the marked vacancies would unjustly
consume the open market quota, disrupt the statutory balance, and violate
the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity in public
employment under Articles 14 and 16 besides overlooking the rules made
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
12. The State of Jharkhand, in response to a directive issued by this Court,
filed an Additional Affidavit dated 07.03.2026 setting out the vacancy position
after accounting for the appointments already made. Further, the Additional
Affidavit states that no recruitment for Assistant Teachers occurred during
the 2021-2022 period. Historical recruitment took place in 2015, and the
13

latest drive began in 2023, by which time a new regular post, “Sahayak
Acharya”, had been created. Further, the appointment process for Sahayak
Acharya under the 2023 advertisement is ongoing and has not yet been
completed. Moreover, according to the affidavit, para-teachers are actively
being appointed in both their reserved 50 per cent category (Para Category)
and the open category (Non-Para Category):
a. Class I-V: 1,667 para teachers have been appointed in the Para Category,
and 2,047 para teachers have successfully secured appointments in the
Non-Para Category.
b. Class VI-VIII: 1,637 para teachers have been appointed in the Para
Category, and 1,950 para teachers have secured appointments in the
Non-Para Category.
c. Total Impact: In total, 7,301 para teachers have been successfully
appointed (3,304 within the reserved Para Category, and 3,997 who
competed and won seats in the Non-Para Category).
Hence, the current system is already working as intended, evidenced by the
thousands of para-teachers who have successfully secured permanent
Sahayak Acharya positions through the ongoing statutory recruitment
process.

13. The State of Jharkhand asserts that the employment of para-teachers
in SSA could, at best, be a temporary arrangement. The Union of India has
stated that it is for the respective State Governments to make policy decisions
regarding para-teachers’ services. The policy, now implemented for
recruitment or regularisation, conforms to the constitutional mandate under
Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution of India. In furtherance of the
14

policy decision of the State, a slew of statutory frameworks is put in place,
which includes the following:
• Community Teacher Service Condition Rules, 2008
•
Jharkhand Primary School Recruitment Rules, 2012
• Jharkhand Regularisation of Rules, 2015

• Jharkhand Assistant Teacher Service Conditions Rules, 2021
• Jharkhand Elementary School Sahayak Acharya Cadre (Appointment,
Promotion and Service Conditions) Rules, 2022
The prayer for the regularisation of para-teachers as Assistant Teachers or
Sahayak Acharyas does not conform to the constitutional mandate. Any
direction for blanket regularisation would be contrary to this Court’s binding
precedents. The subsequent line of decisions in which this Court issued
directions for regularisation are case-specific and are distinguishable on one
or more key parameters.
14. The Counsel appearing on both sides invited our attention to the often-
relied-on citations in support of or against regularisation. It is convenient to
set out, chronologically, the overview of the precedents relied on by the
Appellants and the Respondents in the following table.

2
(2006) 4 SCC 1.
15

16

3
(2017) 1 SCC 148.
17

4
(2024) 9 SCC 327.
18

5
(2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826.
19

6
(2025) INSC 144
7
(2026) INSC 99.
20

8
(2026) INSC 117.
21

15. We limit our reference to the above citations, and exclude the other
citations relied on by the Appellants as well as Respondents, namely: Govt. of
9 10
A.P. v. K. Brahmanandam ; State of UP v. Anand Kumar Yadav ; Narendra
11
Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand ; Sheo Narayan Nagar & Ors. v. State of
12
UP & Anr ; State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee,
13 14
Munger & Ors ; Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand ; State of Punjab
15 16
v. Joginder Singh ; Zabar Singh v. State of Haryana ; M. Raja v. CEERI
17 18
Educational Society Pilani ; S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand ;
19
Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Mehar Chand & Anr ; Chandra Mohan
20 21
Negi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ; Dharam Singh v. State of UP ;
22
Shah Samir Bharatbhai v. State of Gujarat ; Abhishek Sharma and Ors. v. The
23
State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. , since the said citations are premised
on similar principles as the above tabulated citations. We also note that no

9
(2008) 5 SCC 241.
10
(2018) 13 SCC 560.
11
(2018) 8 SCC 238.
12
(2018) 13 SCC 432.
13
(2019) 18 SCC 301.
14
AIR (1980) SC 1622.
15
AIR (1963) SC 913
16
(1972) 2 SCC 215
17
(2006) 12 SCC 636.
18
(2007) 8 SCC 279.
19
(2007) 15 SCC 680.
20
(2020) 5 SCC 732.
21
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735.
22
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1788.
23
SLP (Civil) No. 4881 of 2023.
22

decision to our notice has been brought where illegal appointments were
regularised by an order under Articles 226 or 142 of the Constitution of India.
In the above paragraphs, we have set out the State of Jharkhand’s
introduction of statutory rules. We note the constitutional commitment of the
Union of India and the State of Jharkhand under the RTE Act. In furtherance
of the obligations fastened on the State/Union, schemes such as SSA and
Samagra Shiksha are implemented as centrally sponsored schemes with
proportionate contributions from the State governments. The affidavit of the
Union of India states that the policy of framing rules for the teachers working
under the schemes sanctioned by the Union rests with the State government.
The statement in the affidavit filed before the High Court and this Court read
thus:
Before the High Court: Counter Affidavit of Kripa Nand
Jha, Director Primary Education, sworn on 03.12.2016
“Para 22: That it is stated that the sources of the appointment
for filling up the teacher posts in the government schools is a
policy issue and the State Government is the competent
authority to decide the policy in this regard.
Para 23: That it is stated that the state government has
framed the Teacher Recruitment Rules keeping in mind the
NCTE regulations and this Rule has been upheld by the
Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in WPS No. 7508/2013. It is
further stated that the state government is not bound to follow
the policy framed by the other state governments.
Para 24: That it is stated that in terms of Article 309 of the
Constitution of India, the state is empowered to frame
recruitment rules and lay down the policy for such
recruitment.”

Before this Court: Counter Affidavit of Pradeep Kumar
Under Secretary in Department of School Education &
Literacy, Ministry of Education, sworn on 09.12.2024
“ 14 . Since the recruitment and other service matters of these
teachers are under the domain of State Govts./UTs, the
salary and pay fixation for these teachers is done by
respective States and UTs and the role of Central Govt. is only
restricted to provisioning of funds to meet the salary
23

requirements for these teachers as per the norms of the
Samagra Shiksha.”

16. The para-teachers contend that their initial appointment as para-
teachers is pursuant to the extant procedure applicable to the appointment of
para-teachers under the SSA. Therefore, the entry into the scheme is legal,
and the procedure to which the para-teachers were subjected is substantially
the same as that under the 2012 Rules. It is apposite to note that the State’s
stance is that para-teachers were initially engaged as education volunteers
(Sahyogi Shikshak) on a fixed honorarium under community school schemes.
These centres were later subsumed into the centrally sponsored SSA. Para-
teachers were engaged by local School Management Committees and the
Village Education Committee, but not by district authorities. Their
honorarium is paid from SSA funds provided by the Government of India and
the Government of Jharkhand in a 60:40 ratio. Following the Girinath Singh
Committee’s recommendation, the State amended its recruitment rules in
2009 to provide a 50 per cent reservation for eligible para-teachers in direct
appointments to regular teacher posts. Furthermore, para-teachers have been
granted an upper age limit relaxation of up to 50 years. Under Article 309 of
the Constitution of India, the framing of recruitment policies and the
identification of sources of appointment are strictly matters of State policy.
17. The High Court, on the mode of appointment of Appellants, held that
the posts occupied by them were not sanctioned posts under the State of
Jharkhand’s establishment but were posts sanctioned under the SSA scheme,
a Centrally Sponsored Scheme funded jointly by the Union and the State.
24

Accordingly, it is an admitted case that the Appellants are not appointed
against sanctioned posts; rather, they are contractual engagees under a
scheme. Once an appointee is appointed under a scheme, there is no question
of considering them to be appointed against sanctioned posts.
18. In the instant case, the principal question for consideration is not
whether the initial entry into service can be termed irregular or illegal, but
whether the Courts under Articles 226 and 142 of the Constitution of India
can issue a mandamus to regularise the services of para-teachers as Assistant
Teachers or Sahayak Acharya contrary to the statutory scheme. Policy is
ultimately about the people, what they want and what is best for them. Every
policy question involves assumptions about human nature, in particular
about the choices that government may make and the consequences of their
choices for themselves and for society. The State of Jharkhand, in furtherance
of its policies of recruitment of Assistant Teachers/Sahayak Acharyas has
framed statutory rules. The gist of the statutory rules that enable
consideration of para teachers is reproduced hereunder:
J HARKHAND P RIMARY S CHOOL T EACHER R ECRUITMENT R ULES , 2012

25

J HARKHAND E LEMENTARY S CHOOL S AHAYAK A CHARYA R ULES , 2022

26

19. The prayer for regularisation is a prayer for direct absorption from a
scheme post of para-teachers to a State cadre post of Assistant
Teacher/Sahayak Acharya. This would change the character of the
appointment. A scheme post under the SSA is jointly funded by the Union of
India and the State of Jharkhand, is governed by the SSA guidelines, and
continues until the scheme ceases to exist. 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
24
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.

24
See also , Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & Ors , (2008) 10 SCC 1.
27

20. On the issue of equal pay for equal work, we note that it is not an
automatic entitlement, but rather, the claimant must demonstrate that their
duties, responsibilities, qualifications, accountability and conditions of
25
service are qualitatively identical to those of regular employees. Para-
teachers , though they perform similar classroom functions, are not assigned
the full range of responsibilities of an Assistant Teacher. Further, the UP
Junior High School case (supra) directed pay parity under Rule 20(3) of the
RTE Rules for scheme teachers who are prohibited from other employment.
In the instant case, the teachers claim pay parity with Assistant Teachers,
which is inherently distinct from a revision of the honorarium.

25
State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal (2011) 2 SCC 429: “(i) The High Courts, in exercising power
under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or
permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in
pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive
process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16
should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issu a direction for regularisation of
services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something
that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection
which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments
contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be
regularised.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover
of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into
service, as such service would be “litigious employment”. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage
service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such
employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and
sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal
right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme
providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in
employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent
to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending
the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off
dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against
any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent
continuance of part-time temporary employees.
(v) Part-time temporary employees in Government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary
with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can
employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with
government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under
a contract or under a statute.”
28

26

20.1 In this regard, this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ilmo Devi & Anr. ,
referred to the principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay and
concluded that “regularisation can be only as per the regularisation policy
declared by the State/Government and nobody can claim regularisation as a
matter of right dehors the regularisation policy.”
21. In the Additional Affidavit filed by the State, it is brought on record that,
in the recruitment of Assistant Teachers held in the year 2023, 1637 para-
teachers were appointed after successfully participating in the extant
appointment process for Assistant Teachers. The ratio laid down in the above
judgments notes that the direction for regularisation cannot be contrary to
the statutory rules made by the competent authority. The para-teachers ,
assuming that they have been appointed under the scheme, make a prayer
for regularisation, which takes them into the service of the State Government.
For the said purpose, adherence to Statutory Rules must be insisted upon. In
the extant case, the State, in furtherance of its policy, has framed rules and
kept in perspective the principles laid down in Umadevi (supra) . We are of the
view that the claim of para-teachers for regularisation does not rest on sound
legal and constitutional principles. But, the statutory scheme made by the
State has recognised a right of participation and consideration of the claims
of para-teachers , subject to the respective statutory framework. This Court is
conscious of a diabolical situation in the category of the then para-teachers ,
namely those who participated in the selection process, on being meritorious,

26
(2021) 20 SCC 290.
29

are appointed by the State Government, and the para-teachers who could not
be meritorious would be appointed through a mandamus for regularisation of
their services as Assistant Teachers. In the circumstances of the case and
having regard to the statutory rules in force, the prayer for a blanket direction
for regularisation as an Assistant Teacher or Sahayak Acharya would be
contrary to the binding precedent in Umadevi (supra) . The para-teachers, in
fact, have a right to participation and consideration under the extant rules,
but do not have a right to regularisation. The argument of para-teachers is
that the State has hardly issued any notifications over the past ten to fifteen
years, and the delay in issuing notifications for available vacancies would
defeat the rights of para-teachers . The comparison of similarities of duties,
etc., is to be subjected to the statutory framework and may not ripen into an
absolute right for regularisation of the services as prayed for. The above
discussion leads to the next point for consideration, whether the para
teachers are entitled to a timely recruitment and selection process under the
extant procedure.
21.1 Umadevi (supra) does two things: (i) it bars blanket regularisation by
mandamus contrary to statutory rules; and (ii) in Para 53, it carves a one-
time exception for irregularly appointed employees working against
sanctioned posts for over 10 years, directing the executive to frame a
regularisation scheme. The directions in the following paragraphs implement
the ratio of Umadevi (supra) by directing the State to periodically implement
its own statutory mechanism. We do not wish to create a right to
30

regularisation, but rather to ensure that the State carries out its self-imposed
statutory obligation by appointing para-teachers to regular posts.
22. An attempt has been made before us by para-teachers that in all aspects
and respects, they are similar to Assistant Teachers. We take note of the State
Government on the mode and manner in which para-teachers were initially
employed. We also take note of the view taken by the High Court in the
Impugned Judgment. We have the option of recording a finding either to
support the para-teachers or to support the State’s stance. However, the
circumstances are such that if a finding is recorded against para-teachers ,
they may not receive what the State of Jharkhand, as part of its policy, has
agreed to provide. Therefore, while we agree with the High Court’s view, we
find it appropriate to mould the relief.
23. The complete answer to the enduring swing of judicial consideration
between irregular and illegal appointments is resolved by Umadevi (supra) . It
is noted that the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments
determines the relief available to a party. In the case on hand, we find it
unnecessary to determine whether the initial entry of the para-teachers into
service under the SSA was irregular or illegal, and we expressly decline to do
so for the following reason: the question has been rendered academic by the
State's own legislative conduct. By setting aside 50 per cent of all marked
vacancies for Assistant Teachers/Sahayak Acharyas exclusively for para-
teachers under both the 2012 Rules and the 2022 Rules, the State of
Jharkhand has itself recognised para-teachers as a distinct and legitimate
class, possessing a right to participation and consideration for regular cadre
31

appointments. To ensure security of employment to the para-teachers and
simultaneously give full effect to the statutory rules made under Article 309
of the Constitution of India, we find it appropriate to mould the relief by
directing the State to activate, implement, and periodically honour the very
statutory mechanism it has itself created.
24. 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 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 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
32

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.
I. Immediate Schedule for the Current Academic Year

33

II. Annual Recurring Calendar

34

35

25. 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. The need of the hour is
to strengthen education, particularly at the primary and secondary levels,
36

rather than subsidising it with ad hoc measures. Providing education itself is
not the objective, but providing comprehensive, high-quality education is.
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. In brief, the State examines the individual’s desire to determine whether
the individual deserves to hold the post. Whether this balance has been
correctly struck within the framework of Articles 14, 16, and 309 of the
Constitution of India is the central question we have answered in these
Appeals.
26. The Civil Appeals are ordered as indicated above. Pending
application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.




……..……….…………………J.
[PANKAJ MITHAL]









……..…………………………J.
[S.V.N. BHATTI]

New Delhi;
May 7, 2026

37