The Allahabad High Court has categorically held that teaching work performed on a contractual or part-time basis cannot be treated as valid “teaching experience” for appointment to the post of Headmaster in Junior High Schools. The Court clarified that experience gained as a Part-Time Instructor cannot be equated with regular teaching experience and cannot form the basis of a claim for appointment to the Headmaster’s post.
While examining the provisions of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, the Court observed that “……………the post of Headmaster is a promotional/selection post requiring a prescribed minimum period of teaching experience in a recognized institution.”
The Court further explained the scope of the Rules, 1978 by observing that:
“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.”
The judgment was delivered by Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, who dismissed a batch of petitions filed by Km. Dimple Singh and several other petitioners.
The case concerned candidates who had been working as Part-Time Instructors since 2013 in various districts and who sought inclusion in the appointment process after qualifying the Junior High School Headmaster/ Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2021.
The petitioners submitted that their engagement was made under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 particularly Schedule-1(b)(3)(ii) of Section 19, under which part-time instructors were appointed to teach Art Education, Health and Physical Education and Work Education for Classes 6 to 8 in schools having more than 100 students. They contended that Rule 4 of the 1978 Rules (as amended in 2019) prescribes only five years’ teaching experience in a recognised institution for the post of Headmaster and does not expressly require experience as an Assistant Teacher or Headmaster. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Sadanand Singh v. State of U.P. Thru Secy & Ors.and Dr. Deepak Bhatiya & Others v. State of U.P. & Others.
Opposing the petitions, the State submitted that appointment to the post of Teacher requires mandatory qualifications, including a two-year Diploma in Elementary Education (BTC) along with a TET certificate, whereas such minimum qualifications are not required for appointment as a Part-Time Instructor. It was argued that Part-Time Instructors form a completely distinct category and that experience gained in such capacity cannot be treated as equivalent to the teaching experience of a teacher appointed under the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009.
After hearing both sides, the Court concluded:
“………………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.”
Emphasising that the appointment, qualifications, scope of work and duties of Part-Time Instructors are fundamentally different from those of Assistant Teachers, the Court agreed with the State’s stand and held that neither the administration nor the judiciary has the authority to dilute mandatory eligibility conditions prescribed under statutory rules or equate unequal services in the name of parity.
Referring to several Supreme Court decisions, the Court reiterated that eligibility and experience requirements must be strictly construed, and that the “rules of the game” cannot be altered midway through the selection process.
Concluding that the petitioners failed to satisfy the mandatory requirement of five years’ regular teaching experience, the Court held that their claims were devoid of merit and dismissed all the petitions.
Case: Km. Dimple Singh and 12 others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others
