Regularization requires proven continuous three-year service; unsupported non-formal instructor claims cannot qualify.

The petitioners claimed to have worked as non-formal education instructors under the State’s Non-Formal Education Programme and sought appointment/regularisation against Class IV posts.

They relied on experience certificates and other documents to assert that they had worked continuously for three years, which, according to them, entitled them to the benefit of absorption or appointment pursuant to prior judicial directions.

The District Programme Officer (Literacy), Saran, rejected their claims by letter no. 70 dated 13 June 2020 on the ground that they had not produced documents establishing three years’ work or enumeration.

Following further consideration, the District-Level Committee rejected the claims of 129 candidates and recommended only 13 candidates.

The Committee found that the available payment records showed payments of only Rs. 1,170/-, Rs. 1,170/- and Rs. 1,324/- to petitioners 1, 2 and 3 respectively, and concluded that continuous work for three years had not been established.

The petitioners challenged the rejection and sought appointment to Class IV posts.

Whether the petitioners established the mandatory requirement of continuous work for three years as instructors under the Non-Formal Education Programme so as to claim appointment, absorption or regularisation.

Whether the rejection of the petitioners’ claims by the District Programme Officer and the subsequent District-Level Committee required interference by the High Court.

Whether, in view of the orders of the Supreme Court in the proceedings concerning Non-Formal Education instructors, any further relief could be granted to the petitioners.

The Court applied the eligibility principle arising from the earlier litigation concerning Non-Formal Education instructors, namely, that only instructors who had worked continuously for three years could claim the contemplated benefit of appointment, absorption or regularisation.

It also relied on the Supreme Court’s orders in SLP (C) No. 32079 of 2015 and Civil Review No. 68 of 2019, which had conclusively dealt with the entitlement of such instructors.

The Court accepted the administrative principle that eligibility had to be verified through reliable departmental records, including evidence of actual work and payment, and that an unsupported experience certificate was insufficient to establish continuous service for the required period.

The Court noted that the petitioners relied principally on experience certificates and bank/payment documents to prove their engagement and three years of continuous service.

However, the State’s District-Level Committee had re-examined their claims and verified the available departmental payment records.

Those records reflected only limited payments and did not establish continuous work for three years under the Non-Formal Education Programme.

The Court accepted the Committee’s conclusion that the statutory or policy-based condition precedent for consideration of appointment or regularisation had not been satisfied.

It further held that the earlier Supreme Court proceedings had settled the governing framework and that the petitioners could not obtain relief contrary to that determination.

Consequently, there was no basis for quashing the rejection letter or directing appointment.

In light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in SLP (C) No. 32079 of 2015 and Civil Review No. 68 of 2019, the Court found that no further relief could be granted.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.