State is competent to create sub-cadres and mandate competitive selection for in-service teachers for specialized schools.

The State of Himachal Pradesh notified the “Scheme for CBSE Affiliated Schools of Excellence” on 19.01.2026 to upgrade selected government schools to national standards in line with the National Education Policy 2020

Under this scheme, a "Sub-Scheme" was created to establish a dedicated sub-cadre of teachers for these CBSE schools

Para 5.5 of the Sub-Scheme mandated that existing in-service teachers (under 55 years old) undergo a written test and counseling for selection and deployment to these schools

The petitioners, representing various teacher associations, challenged the legality of creating a sub-cadre and the requirement for in-service teachers to face a competitive examination, alleging it created an arbitrary "class within a class" and demoralized experienced staff

1. Whether the State Government has the executive competence to create a sub-cadre and formulate recruitment schemes in the absence of specific legislative enactments

2. Whether the creation of a dedicated sub-cadre for CBSE schools within the parent cadre violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by creating an arbitrary "class within a class"

3. Whether the prescription of a written test for selecting in-service teachers for deployment to specialized schools is arbitrary or illegal

Article 162 of the Constitution, which extends the State's executive power to all matters on which the State Legislature can legislate, including "Education" under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List

The doctrine from Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, establishing that the executive can act without prior legislation provided it does not violate existing law or the Constitution

P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General and Union of India v. Pushpa Rani, which hold that the constitution of cadres, prescription of qualifications, and methods of recruitment fall within the exclusive policy domain of the employer

Principles of reasonable classification under Article 14, as defined in Budhan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, were applied to validate the distinction between general and CBSE-affiliated schools

The Court reasoned that in the absence of legislative bar, the State possesses the inherent power under Article 162 to restructure its services to improve administrative efficiency and educational quality

It found that the "Sub-Cadre" did not create an illegal "class within a class" because the classification was based on a rational nexus: achieving the objectives of the National Education Policy 2020 through a dedicated, merit-selected faculty

The Court noted that the interests of in-service teachers were protected via Para 5.6.2 (as amended on 23.02.2026), which ensures they retain their lien, seniority, and promotion rights in their parent cadre

Regarding the written test, the Court held that a transparent, merit-based selection process is the most objective way to avoid "pick and choose" favoritism when deploying teachers from a large pool (59,443 teachers) to a limited number of specialized posts (approx. 6,146)

The Court held that the State is competent to devise specialized recruitment procedures for excellence-based schools and that such policy decisions are not subject to judicial interference unless they are patently arbitrary or unconstitutional. The Court vacated the interim stay, allowing the State to declare the results of the screening test held on 05.03.2026 and proceed with counseling and deployment