The Supreme Court has refused to grant blanket regularisation to thousands of para teachers engaged under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) in Jharkhand, holding that courts cannot direct absorption into regular State cadre posts contrary to statutory recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
The bench comprising Justice S.V.N. Bhatti examined the long-standing dispute relating to para teachers appointed under the SSA scheme on contractual terms since 2002. The Court noted that the SSA was introduced as a flagship educational initiative to universalise elementary education under Article 21A and the Right to Education Act, 2009.
The bench directed the State Government to periodically fill the 50% vacancies already reserved for para teachers under the statutory framework, thereby ensuring their continued opportunity for regular appointment.
The judgment was delivered in Sunil Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., where a large batch of appeals challenged a Jharkhand High Court ruling that had dismissed the claims of para teachers seeking regularisation as Assistant Teachers.
The para teachers had sought regularisation against sanctioned vacant posts of Assistant Teachers, pay parity with regular teachers, and a declaration that the Jharkhand Primary School Recruitment Rules, 2012 were unconstitutional to the extent they did not provide a direct route for regularisation.
The petitioners argued that they had been serving in government schools for several years, possessed qualifications such as B.A., M.A., B.Ed., and had also cleared the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). They contended that despite severe shortages of teachers in Jharkhand schools, the State was opting for fresh recruitment instead of regularising experienced para teachers already performing identical teaching duties.
The para teachers also highlighted that they were paid meagre honorariums ranging from ₹7,400 to ₹8,400 and often faced delays of six to eight months in payment. They relied on policies of other States such as Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Assam, where measures had allegedly been adopted for regularisation of para teachers.
On the other hand, the State of Jharkhand maintained that para teachers were engaged only as contractual education volunteers under a centrally sponsored scheme and their appointments did not create any right to automatic absorption into permanent government service. The State emphasised that under the 2012 Rules and subsequent amendments, 50% vacancies had already been reserved for eligible para teachers in direct recruitment for regular teaching posts.
The State further argued that allowing blanket regularisation beyond the reserved quota would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by depriving open-market candidates of equal opportunity in public employment.
The Supreme Court extensively examined precedents including State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, Jaggo v. Union of India, Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, and UP Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association v. State of UP.
The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Umadevi that regularisation cannot become an alternate mode of recruitment and that courts cannot issue directions for absorption in violation of statutory recruitment rules.
At the same time, the Court recognised the difficult position of para teachers and observed that the State itself had acknowledged them as a distinct class by reserving 50% vacancies for them under both the 2012 Rules and the 2022 Rules.
The Court noted that under the statutory framework 50% vacancies are earmarked for para teachers; para teachers satisfying qualification requirements can compete for regular appointments; and separate provisions exist under both the 2012 Rules and 2022 Sahayak Acharya Rules.
The bench observed that the direct regularisation sought by the petitioners would effectively convert scheme-based contractual appointments into State cadre posts without following constitutionally compliant recruitment procedures.
Importantly, the Court clarified that while para teachers possess a “right to participation and consideration” under the statutory rules, they do not possess a “right to regularisation.”
The Court also took note of the State’s affidavit stating that several para teachers had already secured appointments through the ongoing recruitment process. According to the affidavit, more than 7,300 para teachers had successfully obtained permanent appointments either through the reserved para-teacher quota or by competing in the open category.
While declining blanket regularisation, the Supreme Court criticised prolonged ad hocism in public employment and stressed that employment security is essential for improving educational standards.
The Court stated “Expecting a para-teacher, without a guarantee of their employment, to guarantee a child’s future and education is fallacious.”
The Court further remarked that the executive must eliminate ad hocism in public employment and undertake periodic performance audits.
The Supreme Court directed the State of Jharkhand to issue notifications exclusively for para teachers against the 50% earmarked vacancies for Assistant Teachers and Sahayak Acharyas and to undertake the recruitment exercise every academic year.
The Court thus balanced constitutional limitations on judicial regularisation with the need to ensure that para teachers receive meaningful opportunities for permanent appointment under the State’s own statutory recruitment framework.
Case Details
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Yadav And Others Versus The State Of Jharkhand And Others
Citation: JURISHOUR-1154-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(S). 4881 Of 2023
Date: 07/05/2026
