Para-teachers validly appointed with required qualifications cannot be terminated without due process under service rules.

The petitioners were appointed as para-teachers between 2003 and 2006, when the prescribed qualification was Matriculation; the State did not dispute that they held that qualification at appointment.

They were later required to acquire Intermediate qualification, and several petitioners relied on certificates from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad.

After the State and education authorities stopped taking work from them and withheld honorarium from August 2024, the petitioners challenged the resulting orders and sought reinstatement to their engagements and payment for the period worked.

The petitions were heard together because they raised common issues.

Whether the petitioners could be removed from their para-teacher engagements, or denied honorarium, on the ground that their subsequently acquired Intermediate qualifications were allegedly invalid, despite their having held the prescribed Matriculation qualification when appointed.

Whether stopping the petitioners from working and withholding honorarium without following the procedure under the Jharkhand Sahayak Adhyapak Seva Shart Niyamavali, 2021, was lawful.

The Court applied the Jharkhand Sahayak Adhyapak Seva Shart Niyamavali, 2021, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, which governs the service conditions of para-teachers, now called Sahayak Adhyapak; the Rules define termination as a major penalty and provide for disciplinary authority and procedures.

It also relied on the Division Bench decision in Sita Ram Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand, L.P.A. No. 117 of 2012, which held that the Madhyama certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was equivalent to Intermediate, and directed the petitioner’s return to service after verification.

By contrast, the Court held that L.P.A. No. 10 of 2021 and Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar v. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 609, concerned Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, not the Allahabad institution at issue here.

The Court further held that para-teachers who possessed the prescribed qualification at appointment could not be removed on the basis of a later requirement to enhance their qualifications.

The respondents accepted that the petitioners held the required Matriculation qualification when appointed.

The Court therefore held that the later requirement to obtain Intermediate qualifications did not justify removing them from engagements they had validly entered.

It also found that the binding Division Bench ruling concerned certificates from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, whereas the later ruling relied upon by the respondents concerned Prayag; the latter did not displace the former.

Finally, stopping work and withholding honorarium effectively imposed a major penalty under the 2021 Rules, but the respondents had not followed the prescribed procedure.

The Court clarified that its decision did not entitle the petitioners to regularization as government teachers.

It directed the respondents to continue the petitioners as para-teachers/Sahayak Adhyapak, pay honorarium from August 2024 for the period they had worked, and continue payment in accordance with the 2021 Rules.

The directions were to be implemented within eight weeks of receipt or production of the order.