HC orders regularisation of all SSA teachers in Chandigarh with over 10 years’ service
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the regularisation of all UT teachers appointed under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) who have completed more than 10 years of service as on November 14. The direction came as Justice Jagmohan Bansal ruled the teachers could not be denied regularisation following the absence of posts or regularisation policy.
The Bench directed the Union of India and other respondents to do the needful within six weeks, while making it clear that the failure to do so would automatically trigger “deemed regularisation”. The judgment came in case of petitioner-teachers in seven petitions.
Justice Bansal at the same time ruled: “To avoid future similar petitions and save valuable time, energy and resources of litigants as well as this court, I find it appropriate to direct the respondents to apply this judgment to all the similarly situated teachers”.
The development is significant as the Government of India, vide impugned order dated May 7, 2021, had rejected UT’s requests for regularisation of teachers appointed under SSA. Allowing the petitions arising from the multiple writs, the Bench observed that the teachers had been working since 2005, many for more than 20 years, and that they were recruited strictly through a competitive and transparent process identical to the process for regular appointments.
Taking up the matter, the Bench asserted: “The petitioners were appointed after following due procedure. They are fully qualified. They were selected against posts sanctioned by Project Approval Board. They cannot be denied regularisation on the basis of absence of posts or regularisation policy.”
Justice Bansal also observed that the appointments were made following an advertisement issued by the SSA Society under the UT Administration. One hundred marks were allocated across academic qualifications, written test, experience and interview.
Candidates were required to meet prescribed age and qualification criteria and were subjected to medical examination and police verification.
“The entire selection process was as prescribed for selection of regular teachers,” the court observed before asserting that “the petitioners are not backdoor entrants.”
Justice Bansal added the State’s reliance on judgments criticising irregular and casual employment was misplaced as those cases dealt with appointments made without compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
In contrast, the SSA teachers before the Court “were appointed after following due appointment procedure”.
The Bench, during the course of hearing, specifically asked the respondents to identify any ruling where candidates recruited through such due procedure were denied regularisation. But “despite being repeatedly asked,” no such judgment was cited.
Referring to the broader framework of SSA, the Bench observed that the programme was launched in partnership with States and Union Territories to achieve universal elementary education. Under the approved scheme, UTs were required to appoint additional teachers to meet the pupil–teacher ratio under the Right to Education Act.
For Chandigarh, 1375 posts were sanctioned for teachers across different meetings of the Project Approval Board of the Ministry of Human Resource Development. In multiple communications, the UT Administration urged the Centre to create additional posts to enable regularisation of these SSA teachers.
The petitioners were represented by senior advocates DS Patwalia, Gurminder Singh and Akshay Bhan. The other counsel assisting the Bench on petitioners’ behalf were Harpriya Khaneka, Ayush Gupta, AS Rawaley, Mahipal S Yadav, Kulbir Singh Sekhon and Dinesh Kumar Jangra.
Senior advocate and senior standing counsel Amit Jhanji appeared for UT with Himanshu Arora, Madhu Dayal and Abhishek Premi.
Chandigarh