Eligible Guest Teachers cannot be denied engagement because authorities failed to disclose vacancies.

The petitioner had worked as a Guest Teacher during the 2024–25 academic session, including for 29 days in April 2025.

For 2025–26, Guest Teacher vacancies were to be filled through GFMS/Education Portal 3.0. The petitioner alleged that, although she was on the relevant panel, the vacancy at Government Primary School, Pawaiyapura was not uploaded, preventing her from submitting an online request.

She pursued complaints with the authorities; respondent No. 5 later applied for disclosure of the vacancy, and respondent No. 3 requested that the portal be opened for that purpose.

The State opposed relief, relying on the school’s enrolment of 24 students, the asserted absence of need for an additional Guest Teacher, and the expiry of the 2025–26 academic session.

1. Whether the petitioner was prevented from submitting her request for engagement because the vacancy was not disclosed on Portal 3.0

2. Whether, in light of the alleged non-disclosure and the subsequent expiry of the academic session, the petitioner was entitled to engagement and consideration of consequential benefits

3. Whether an enquiry and disciplinary action were warranted concerning responsibility for the vacancy’s non-disclosure

The Court relied on the Guest Teacher engagement process under the instructions dated 26.06.2025, which required a vacancy to be disclosed on the portal before an eligible panelled candidate could submit a request.

It considered the applicable staffing norm, reflected in the material before it, prescribing two teachers for a primary school with up to 60 students; student strength alone did not establish that there could be no need for a second teacher, though actual teaching strength, teacher availability, and applicable instructions remained relevant.

The Court also applied the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in State action, relying on Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71.

It further held that a person should not suffer for an authority’s act or omission where the person took timely steps but was prevented from completing the process for reasons beyond their control.

The petitioner’s repeated complaints, respondent No. 5’s later application seeking disclosure of the vacancy, and respondent No. 3’s request to open the portal supported her contention that the vacancy had not been disclosed and that the issue was subsequently recognised by the authorities.

The Court held that an enrolment of 24 students, by itself, did not rule out a requirement for a second teacher, while clarifying that the staffing norm did not automatically require engagement of a Guest Teacher.

Given the petitioner’s prior engagement, panel status, and efforts to pursue her claim, the Court concluded that she could not be denied consideration solely because she had been unable to submit an online request after the vacancy was not uploaded; the session’s expiry did not erase the consequences of the alleged omission.

The respondents were directed to issue an engagement order to the petitioner as a Guest Teacher against the available vacancy at Government Primary School, Pawaiyapura, subject to her satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions, and to permit her to join and discharge duties.

The respondents were also directed to consider her claim for consequential benefits relating to service and experience, to the extent permissible under the applicable rules.

The competent authority was directed to enquire into responsibility for non-disclosure and, if deliberate or negligent wrongdoing was established, take appropriate disciplinary action in accordance with law.

The directions were to be acted upon forthwith, with a decision on consequential benefits preferably within 30 days of receipt of a certified copy of the order.