The Bombay High Court has held that the petitioners, who were appointed as primary teachers on a contractual basis under the Goa Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (GSSA), were not entitled to the benefits of regularization and associated benefits. The Court rejected their claims for regularisation, citing the absence of proper selection procedures and qualifications prescribed by the recruitment rules. The Court emphasized that their contractual engagements did not adhere to the constitutional scheme of Articles 14 and 16 and could not be considered merely "irregular" appointments. However, the Court granted the Petitioners' age relaxation for the purpose of considering their candidatures.

The petition was filed by the petitioners, who were appointed as primary teachers on a contractual basis under the Goa Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (GSSA), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, of 1860. They sought regularization of their services as "Government Primary Teachers" with all associated benefits. They also challenged advertisements issued by the State of Goa inviting applications for regular government primary school teacher positions.

A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Bharat P. Deshpande however held that, “while we cannot grant to the Petitioners the benefit of regularisation or the other reliefs claimed in their Petitions, we direct that if any of the employees, including the Petitioners, engaged on a contractual basis under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, apply for and participate in the selection process for filling up posts of Government Primary School Teachers on a regular basis, then the candidatures of such persons, including the petitioners must be considered by granting them age relaxation.”

Advocate S. G. Desai appeared for the Petitioners and Advocate D. Pangam appeared for the Respondents.

The counsel for the petitioners contended that the GSSA qualifies as a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, and therefore, constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 21A and 45 relating to free and compulsory education, should apply to it.

The counsel for the Respondents contended that the petitioners were contractually appointed by the GSSA, not the State Government, and their appointments were explicitly contractual.

The issue before the Court was whether the petitioners' contractual appointments could be considered de facto regular and whether they were entitled to the benefits of regularization and associated benefits.

The Court relied on the principles established in The Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v/s. Umadevi and Others – (2006) 4 SCC 1 and other related cases to reject the petitioners' claims for regularisation of their contractual services, particularly in the absence of proper selection procedures and qualifications prescribed by the recruitment rules. They clarified that the window for regularization mentioned in Umadevi only applied to those who had worked for ten years or more before the decision's date, not those who had not completed ten years by that time.

The Court added, “applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, we find it difficult to grant the petitioners benefit of regularisation of their contractual services particularly in the absence of any material to show that the petitioners were appointed against any sanctioned posts after adoption of a selection process consistent with the constitutional scheme under Articles 14 and 16. The grant of relief of regularisation therefore, would run counter to the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (supra) and several other decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this court on the subject.”

The Court emphasized that the mere issuance of an advertisement by GSSA before the petitioners were engaged on a contractual basis did not imply that their contractual engagement was a regular appointment consistent with constitutional articles 14 and 16.

The Court noted that the selection committee that chose the petitioners as contractual employees was formed on an ad-hoc basis and gave 100% weightage to interviews or Viva Voce, which the Court considered contrary to various Supreme Court decisions and constitutional guarantees.

The Court said that recruitment rules for Government Primary School Teachers were not followed in the petitioners' case. Some of the petitioners did not even meet the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement.

The Court rejected the argument that the state should have enabled the petitioners to acquire the necessary qualifications, conduct regular in-service training, or hold the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) regularly.

The Court concluded that the petitioners' contractual engagement did not follow the constitutional scheme of Articles 14 and 16, and thus, they could not be regarded as merely "irregular" appointments.

The Court also noted that the petitioners were not engaged as contractual employees before the Umadevi case was decided, and therefore, they did not meet the requirement of completing ten years of uninterrupted service as of the date when the Umadevi judgment was pronounced.

The Court referred to various Supreme Court decisions and previous cases in the state, stating that the constitutional scheme emphasizes equality of opportunity in public employment, and appointments made against such scheme could not be countenanced.

Finally, the Court directed that if any of the contractual employees, including the petitioners, applied for and participated in the regular selection process for Government Primary School Teachers, their candidatures should be considered with age relaxation, provided they met other qualifications prescribed in the recruitment rules.

The Court ultimately rejected the relief of regularisation but allowed the petitioners to compete in regular selection processes with age relaxation.

Cause Title: Raghunath Ramchandra Naik & Ors. v. State of Goa & Anr.

Click here to read/download Judgment




Bombay High CourtJustice M.S SonakJustice Bharat P. Deshpande

Suchita Shukla