Part-Time Instructors Do Not Constitute Cadre Of Teachers; Ineligible For Headmaster Posts: Allahabad High Court

The Court opined that the post of Headmaster, being the academic head of the institution, requires experience and cannot be construed to include experience gained in any casual, part-time, honorary, or non-cadre capacity.

​The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed, “As per the Rules, 1978, as amended from time to time, the post of Headmaster is a promotional/selection post requiring a prescribed minimum period of teaching experience in a recognized institution. Said Rules consciously employ the expression “teaching experience” in the context of regular teachers appointed against sanctioned posts and governed by the statutory service conditions. From a plain reading of the Rules, 1978, it is evident that part-time instructors do not constitute a cadre of teachers under the said Rules. The minimum educational qualifications, mode of engagement, tenure, and nature of duties of part-time instructors are fundamentally different from those of Assistant Teachers appointed under the said Rules. Part-time instructors are engaged only for Classes 6 to 8, that too subject to student strength exceeding 100, and are not appointed for Classes 1 to 4 at all. Their engagement is thus contingent, limited, and need-based, lacking the attributes of a regular statutory appointment.”

Senior Advocate Siddharth Khare appeared on behalf of the Petitioners, whereas CSC Abhishek Srivastava appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

The petitioners approached the court with a prayer to quash the prescribed format of the experience certificate, contained in Appendix-3 to the Circular, insofar as it insists upon experience as Assistant Teacher/ Headmaster, and further to treat the petitioners as fully eligible in terms of the notification permitting them to participate in the remaining process of selection.

The Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, making provisions for free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of 14 years. For the implementation of the said Act, a Government Order dated 31.01.2013 was issued. Pursuant thereto, the District Basic Education Officers of the concerned districts published an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Part-Time Instructors.

Being eligible for the said posts, the petitioners applied and were appointed as part-time Instructors in view of the Schedule-1(b)(3)(ii) of Section 19 of the Act of 2009, wherein part-time instructors for teaching Art Education, Health and Physical Education and Work Education were to be appointed for teaching Classes 6 to 8 in schools having more than 100 students.

Contention of the Parties

The petitioners contended that the condition contained in the impugned circular requires experience in the capacity of Assistant Teacher// Head Master, though it is not envisaged under Clause-4 of the Government Order dated 19.02.2021. There exists no rational justification for incorporating a further condition of experience having been required in the capacity of Assistant Teacher/Head Master by prescribing a format in which the experience certificate is required to be submitted as per Rule-4 of the Rules, 1978, as amended in the year 2019, as well as Clause 4 of the Government Order dated 19.02.2021.

The State submitted that the person to be appointed as a Teacher in a Primary/Upper Primary School must possess the minimum qualifications as per the provisions of the notification of the NCTE dated 23.08.2010. It was contended that once the part-time instructors were not working on the posts of Teachers either part-time or full-time, therefore, any interpretation of the expression ‘teaching experience’ as mentioned in Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 1978 would amount to treating unequals as equals and would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Observations of the Court

In its observation, the Court clarified that the Rules of 1978 were established to govern the recruitment and service conditions for teachers in Junior High Schools, specifically addressing the role of Headmaster as a promotional position involving both academic and administrative duties. According to Rule 4, as amended in 2019, specific minimum qualifications are required for these roles: an Assistant Teacher must hold a graduation degree from a UGC-recognized university and have completed a state or NCTE-recognized teacher training course. For the position of Headmaster, the criteria are more extensive, requiring a graduation degree (or an equivalent recognized qualification), a recognized teacher training course, and successful completion of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for the Upper Primary Level. Furthermore, candidates for Headmaster must possess at least five years of teaching experience within a recognized Junior High School or a Senior Basic School under the Basic Education Board.

“A harmonious and purposive interpretation of the Rules makes it abundantly clear that the teaching experience contemplated therein must be experience gained as a duly appointed teacher in a recognized Junior High School or Senior Basic School, forming part of the regular teaching cadre. The post of Headmaster being the academic head of the institution, the required experience which cannot be construed to include experience gained in any casual, part-time, honorary, or non-cadre capacity.”, the Court opined.

The Court reiterated that the eligibility conditions prescribed under the statutory recruitment rules must be strictly construed and scrupulously followed. Neither the appointing authority nor the court can dilute, relax, or substitute the essential qualifications unless such power is expressly conferred by the rules themselves. The purpose behind prescribing teaching experience for the post of Headmaster is to ensure administrative efficiency, academic leadership, and familiarity with institutional responsibilities acquired through regular service, it added.

Conclusion

Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the Court said that it is evident that if the recruitment rules specifically require teaching experience as an Assistant Teacher in regular service, experience acquired merely as a part-time instructor lacking the attributes of permanency, administrative responsibility, and regular academic engagement cannot be treated as valid compliance with the eligibility criteria. To hold otherwise would amount to rewriting the rules, which is impermissible in law, it said.

“Experience acquired as a part-time instructor is not equivalent to regular teaching experience under the Rules, 1978 and cannot be counted towards the requisite five years teaching experience for appointment to the post of Headmaster. The experience gained on part-time basis cannot ordinarily be equated with regular service experience unless the rules expressly permit such equivalence. The post, status, and duties attached to the experience are required to be considered.”, the Court concluded.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Headmaster, on the ground of lack of requisite teaching experience. Hence, the court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Km. Dimple Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. [Neutral Citation:2025:AHC:223820]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Siddharth Khare

Respondents: CSC Abhishek Srivastava

Click here to read/download the Judgment