Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the validity of appointments of teachers under three special schemes framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh: the Himachal Pradesh Prathmik Sahayak Adhyapak/Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) Scheme, 2003; the Himachal Pradesh Para Teachers (Lecturer School Cadre), Para Teachers (TGT's) and Para Teachers (C&V) Policy, 2003; and the Himachal Pradesh Gram Vidya Upasak Yojna, 2001. These schemes were introduced to fill vacant teaching posts in remote and backward areas where qualified teachers were not available due to the tough topographical conditions of the State. The appointments were made by Gram Panchayats or under State policies, with the objective of achieving compulsory primary education under the Himachal Pradesh Compulsory Primary Education Act, 1997. In 2012, three individuals—Chander Mohan Negi, Rajiv Chauhan, and Rakesh Kumar—filed a writ petition (C.W.P.No.3303 of 2012-A) before the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking directions to fill vacancies of Junior Basic Trained (JBT) teachers in accordance with Recruitment and Promotion Rules and to restrain the regularization of Primary Assistant Teachers appointed under the schemes. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 18.10.2012, holding that the appointments were made de hors the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and amounted to back door entry, directing the State to phase out such teachers and fill vacancies as per rules. Aggrieved, the State, the affected teachers, and the Association of Primary Assistant Teachers filed Letters Patent Appeals before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, by common judgment dated 09.12.2014, allowed the appeals and set aside the Single Judge's order, dismissing the writ petitions. The Division Bench held that the writ petitions were filed belatedly after 11 years, the writ petitioners were not qualified at the time of appointments, no one had questioned the selections earlier, the State had explained the non-availability of qualified teachers, and the teachers had rendered long service, making it open for the State to regularise them. The original petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard arguments from counsel for the appellants, the State, and the private respondents. The appellants argued that the appointments were contrary to Article 309 Rules, that qualified candidates were available, and that the appointments were back door entries that could not be regularised. The State and private respondents contended that the appointments were necessitated by non-availability of qualified teachers in remote areas, that the teachers had acquired qualifications, and that the State had taken a Cabinet decision to take over such teachers on contract basis after seven to eight years of service. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's judgment, finding that the High Court had recorded valid and sufficient reasons. The Court noted that the appointments were made under bona fide schemes to address the shortage of teachers in difficult areas, that the challenge was highly belated, and that the State could regularise the services of teachers who had rendered long service. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment under Special Schemes - Validity - The appointments of teachers under the PAT Scheme, Para Teachers Policy, and Gram Vidya Upasak Yojna were made due to non-availability of qualified candidates in remote and backward areas of Himachal Pradesh - The Court held that such appointments were not illegal as they were necessitated by the tough topographical conditions and the need to achieve compulsory primary education goals - The State could regularise their services after long service (Paras 2-5, 9-10). B) Service Law - Delay and Laches - Challenge to Appointments - The writ petitions challenging appointments made in 2001 and 2003 were filed in 2012 and 2013, i.e., after 11 years - The Court held that the delay was fatal and the writ petitioners were not even qualified at the time of appointments - No one questioned the selections at the relevant time (Paras 5-6). C) Service Law - Regularisation - Long Service - The teachers appointed under the schemes had rendered long service and many had acquired professional qualifications - The Court held that it was open for the State to regularise their services in view of the long service rendered by them (Paras 5, 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointments of teachers under the Himachal Pradesh Prathmik Sahayak Adhyapak/Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) Scheme, the Himachal Pradesh Para Teachers Policy, 2003, and the Himachal Pradesh Gram Vidya Upasak Yojna, 2001, were illegal and liable to be quashed, and whether the State could regularise their services.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals, upholding the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 09.12.2014. The Court found that the High Court had recorded valid and sufficient reasons, and the appeals were dismissed.
Law Points
- Appointments under special schemes are valid if made due to non-availability of qualified candidates
- delay in challenging appointments is fatal
- long service can be considered for regularisation
- back door entry not established if schemes were bona fide
