Jharkhand HC Orders Regularisation And Upper-Primary Teacher Pay Scales For 51 Resource Persons Hired Through Open Ads After Over A Decade’s Service

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioners, engaged as CRPs and BRPs after an advertised selection process and having served continuously for many years in work of a perennial nature, were entitled to regularization.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition and held that the petitioners were entitled to regularization as CRPs or BRPs, as applicable, and to the pay scales prescribed for Upper Primary School Teachers who had previously performed the relevant duties.

It also directed

The respondents were directed to issue the necessary regularization orders as early as possible, preferably within 12 weeks of receiving or being presented with a copy of the order.

01Facts

The petitioners were engaged as Cluster Resource Persons (CRPs) or Block Resource Persons (BRPs) under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, later subsumed into the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan.

¶ 2–7

They asserted that they had been selected through open advertisements and had served continuously for over a decade, with some serving for more than two decades.

¶ 2–7, 20–21

The State opposed regularization, relying on earlier decisions refusing similar relief to contractual employees.

¶ 13–15

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioners, engaged as CRPs and BRPs after an advertised selection process and having served continuously for many years in work of a perennial nature, were entitled to regularization.

¶ 20–21

ii.2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the pay scales prescribed for Upper Primary School Teachers, who had previously discharged the relevant duties.

¶ 21

03Law Applied

The Court relied on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), as discussed in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327, including the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments and the principle that long service in a duly sanctioned post may warrant consideration for regularization as a one-time measure.

¶ 16

It also relied on Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, and Jaggo v. Union of India, SLP (C) No. 5580 of 2024, concerning prolonged service in continuing public functions and the need for fair treatment of long-serving employees.

¶ 17–18

The Court further referred to Amita Kumari v. Union of India, W.P. (S) No. 4283 of 2025, on the State’s inability to rely on its own failure to create posts where work is perennial.

¶ 19

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioners possessed relevant educational qualifications, including B.Ed. and JTET qualifications, and had been appointed after applications were invited through open advertisement and a selection process.

¶ 20

Their duties—monitoring education quality, evaluating its delivery, and recommending improvements—were ongoing and perennial rather than temporary.

¶ 20

Considering those features alongside their prolonged continuous service, the Court held that the petitioners’ claims warranted regularization notwithstanding the State’s reliance on decisions concerning other contractual employees.

¶ 13–15, 20–21

Because Upper Primary School Teachers had previously performed the same work on deputation, the Court also held that the petitioners were entitled to the pay scales prescribed for those teachers.

¶ 21

05Holding

¶ 21–22

The respondents were directed to issue the necessary regularization orders as early as possible, preferably within 12 weeks of receiving or being presented with a copy of the order.

¶ 23

LawLens.Jharkhand High Court

Original Court PDF