Jharkhand High Court
Anita Muchu vs State Of Jharkhand on 28 July, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:20936
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6833 of 2023
.........
1. Anita Muchu, Aged about 34 years, daughter of Junas Muchu, Resident of Village House 141, Samlong Munda Garha, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District-Ranchi.
2. Pritam Kumar Mahto, Aged about 34 years, son of Ghasi Ram Mahto, Resident of Village- Nawagawon, P.O. - Rahe & P.S. Sonahatu, District-Ranchi. ..... Petitioners Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand having office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. Director, Primary Education, Department of School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, P.O & P.S-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
4. Jharkhand Education Project Council through its State Project Director having office at near JSCA Stadium Road, Sector-3, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
5. State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project having office at near JSCA Stadium Road, Sector-3, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
6. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Jharkhand Education Project, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
7. District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
8. District Education Officer, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
9. Block Education Extension Officer, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Itki, District-Ranchi.
10. Warden-cum-Teacher, Jharkhand Balika Awasiya Vidyalaya, Itki,, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Itki, District-Ranchi. 1
2025:JHHC:20936
11. Warden-cum-Teacher, Jharkhand Balika Awasiya Vidyalaya, Rahe, Ranchi, P.O. Rahe & P.S. Sonahatu, District-Ranchi. ..... Respondents .........
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN .......
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Adv Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv For the Res.-State : Mr. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, S.C.-IV Mr. Divyam, A.C. to S.C.-IV For the Res.-JEPC : Mr. Krishna Murari, Adv Mr.Raj Vardhan, Advocate .........
C.A.V. ON 15/07/2025 PRONOUNCED ON:28 /07/2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners for the following reliefs: -
(i) The petitioners have preferred the writ petition for quashing of Advertisement No. 1270 dated 18.09.2023 by which the online applications were invited for selection of teachers in Jharkhand Balika Awasiya Vidyalaya, Ranchi on temporary and short-term contract; and further to allow the petitioners to continue on the post of teachers in Jharkhand Balika Awasiya Vidyalaya, Ranchi till the project continues or till the petitioners attain the age of superannuation.
(ii) The petitioners have also prayed to grant same pay-scale which the full-time teachers/contractual teachers are getting in the school.
3. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi has directed the Warden, Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, Namkum, Ranchi vide his letter no. WDP/8/49/09/18 dated 10.02.2016 for the appointment of teachers in different subjects and, pursuant to the said direction, the Petitioner no.1 was appointed with the condition that the said appointment will be cancelled if the 2 2025:JHHC:20936 performance of the petitioner/teacher is not found satisfactory, and the Managing Committee of the School is fully empowered to take such decision. Another condition that has been added is that if any teachers are deputed in the future, the service of the petitioner/teacher stands terminated automatically.
4. The Petitioner no.2 has also been appointed and working on the post of teacher for teaching the subject of Mathematics and Science and is rendering his duty since 15.07.2016 as is evident from the certificate issued by the Warden, Jharkhand Balika Awasiya Vidyalaya, Rahe at Ranchi.
5. It has further been argued that Jharkhand Balika Awasiya Vidyalaya Scheme has been launched for providing education to the girl belonging to disadvantageous group such as SC/ST/OBC/Minority and below the Poverty Line. The object of the scheme is to provide quality education to the girls of the disadvantageous group by setting up residential school upto secondary level. The Jharkhand Balika Awasiya Vidyalaya provides education to the girls for class 6 to 8 as well as for class 9 to 12. The aforesaid scheme is being run under the supervision of Jharkhand Education Project Council.
He further submitted that the Director, Jharkhand 3 2025:JHHC:20936 Education Project Council vide letter no. 711 dated 24.03.2022 has enhanced the salary/honorarium of the teachers working in different Jharkhand Balika Awasiya Vidyalaya along with teachers working in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya. The salary of the teachers working on full time basis and part time basis has been enhanced by 20% and this enhancement has been made effective from 01.04.2021. In Para-3 of the aforesaid letter dated 24.03.2022, it has been categorically stated that there is no fulltime teacher working in Jharkhand Balika Awasiya Vidyalaya. The petitioners have also enclosed the letter no. 2048 dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) which has made further amendment in the earlier letter no. 711 dated 24.03.2022 and in the said letter, it has been clarified that a teacher shall take maximum four classes for 25 days in a month and the honorarium for each day will be Rs.240/-. The aforesaid condition is for teachers teaching in Class 6 to 8 and the total days of working will be 25. And the teachers teaching in Class 9 to 12 will take maximum four classes per day and will be paid Rs.720/- per day and the total days of working will be 20 per month.
6. He has further drawn attention of this Court towards the amendment and submits that the Jharkhand State Education Project Council has amended the aforesaid letter 4 2025:JHHC:20936 no. 711 dated 24.03.2022 by issuing a letter no. 711 dated 24.03.2022 and in the said amendment, the provision has been made that every teacher teaching for class 6 to 8 shall take maximum three classes for 25 days in a month and the teachers teaching for class 9 to 12 will also take four classes every day.
7. Ld. Counsel contended that from the aforesaid letter, it is evident that even the teachers working on Ghanti Adharit/on temporary basis will have to take at least three classes in a day for class 6 to 8 for maximum 25 days per month; and maximum four classes in a day for class 9 to 12 for maximum 20 days per month. Therefore, the working of the teachers including the petitioners are similar to the regular teacher or the full-time teacher.
8. He further submitted that in view of the aforesaid letter, the Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi along with the District Superintendent of Education, District Education Officer, Ranchi vide Memo No. 1270 dated 18.09.2023 has issued notice inviting application for selection of teachers on temporary and short-term contract for class 6 to 8 as well as for class 9 to 12 in different subjects. The aforesaid advertisement also provides the qualification for the teachers.
5
2025:JHHC:20936
9. Mr. Krishna contended that the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid advertisement on the ground that the petitioners are already working since 2016 continuously and are being paid the salary and their work is satisfactory. Therefore, they should be allowed to continue till project continues or till the petitioners attain the age of superannuation or for any deficiency if it is found against the petitioners. In this regard he has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. Director General of Police1. In the aforesaid judgment, the appellant was an ex- service man and was selected and appointed as Sub Inspector. The appointment letters issued to them made it clear that the appointments were purely on ad hoc and temporary basis and that they could be discharged without assigning any reason or notice, if any contingency in future. The aforesaid appointment was initially made for a contract period of one year and thereafter it was being terminated and the appellants of the said case were again being reappointed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid case, has held categorically that "if the temporary or ad hoc engagement or appointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc or 1 (2009) 6 SCC 611 6 2025:JHHC:20936 temporary service of the persons employed under the project or the scheme would come to an end, on completion/closure/cessation of the project or the scheme."
For brevity, relevant paragraphs of the judgment i.e. Para 13, 14, 15 and 17 are being quoted here-in-below:
"13. The fact that the appellants were employed under the PIF Additional Scheme is not disputed. The duration of the PIF Additional Scheme under which they are employed was initially two years, to be reviewed for continuation along with the original PIF Scheme. The said Scheme is being extended from time to time and is being continued. If the temporary or ad hoc engagement or appointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc or temporary service of the persons employed under the project or the scheme would come to an end, on completion/closure/cessation of the project or the scheme.
14. The fact that the Scheme had been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for one or two decades would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularization. Even if any posts are sanctioned with reference to the Scheme, such sanction is of ad hoc or temporary posts coterminous with the scheme, and not of permanent posts.
15. On completion of the project or discontinuance of the scheme, those who were engaged with reference to or in connection with such project or scheme cannot claim any right to continue in service, nor seek regularization in some other project or service. [See Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana, Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Admn., Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. Employees' Union, U.P. Land Development Corpn. V. Amar Singh, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), Indian Council of Medical Research v. K.Rajyalakshmi and Lal Mohammad v. Indian Railway Construction Co.Ltd.]. In view of this settled position, the appellants will not be entitled to regularization.
17. When the ad hoc appointment is under a scheme and is in accordance with the selection process prescribed by the scheme, there is no reason why those appointed under the scheme should not be continued as long as the scheme continues. Ad hoc appointments under schemes are normally coterminous with the scheme (subject of course to earlier termination either on medical or disciplinary grounds, or for unsatisfactory service or on attainment of normal age of retirement). Irrespective of the length of their ad hoc service or the scheme, they will not be entitled to regularization nor to the security of tenure and service benefits available to the regular employees. In this background, particularly in view of the continuing Scheme, the ex- serviceman employed after undergoing the selection process, need not be subjected to the agony, anxiety, humiliation and vicissitudes of annual termination and re-engagement, merely because their appointment is termed as ad hoc appointments."7
2025:JHHC:20936
10. He further relied upon the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 157 of 2023 dated 23.04.2024 by Coordinate Bench of this Court in which the Jharkhand Education Project Council had filed a counter affidavit admitting that the petitioners of the said case, shall be continued till the scheme continues. The petitioners of the aforesaid case are identically situated to the petitioners of the present case. The order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 157/2023 is being quoted here-in- below :-
"Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ particularly in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to provide salary/emoluments to the petitioners in appropriate scale which has been provided to the teachers performing identical function in various other schools owned and controlled by the State Government.
AND
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate
writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ particularly in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in the service under the respondent authorities, the petitioners were appointed to discharge their function, shall continue.
AND
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate
writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ particularly in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as an employee of the Jharkhand State Project Council since the project under which the petitioners were appointed is being run by the Jharkhand Education Project Council and all the Rules and Regulations of the Jharkhand Education Project Council shall apply for the petitioners which governs the service condition.""
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that so far as the prayer nos. (i) and (iii) are concerned, the petitioners are not pressing the same. He submits that a judgment has been passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 602 of 2019 wherein claim of the regularization of teachers working in Kasturba Gadhi Residential Girls School has been denied vide judgment dated 19.02.2024.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if the present writ petition is disposed of by recording the statements made in paragraphs 9 to 8 2025:JHHC:20936 11 of the counter- affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 4 to 20 (JEPC).
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 to 20- JEPC has no objection to the aforesaid submission. He has submitted that the continuation of the petitioners would certainly be subject to policy decision of the respondents and they would be entitled to continue at best till they attain the age of superannuation as per the norms governing the petitioners.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the claim of regularization has been rejected by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 602 of 2019 and consequently, the petitioners have not pressed the prayer nos. (i) and (iii) of the writ petition.
7. However, a specific stand has been taken by the respondent nos. 4 to 20 (JEPC) that the services of the petitioners are on short term contractual basis and further, their engagement can at best continue till the scheme continues. A submission has also been made that their continuation would be subject to policy decision and certainly cannot exceed beyond the age of superannuation. Paragraph nos. 9 to 12 of the counter-affidavit of the respondent nos. 4 to 20 (JEPC) are quoted as under:
"9. That it is further stated that the service of the petitioner are on short term contractual basis and consolidated emoluments/honorarium are paid to them from the management cost of the project and management cost is fixed for each other and their contract can be terminated anytime after giving one month prior notice or in the closer of the scheme.
10.That it is humbly stated that JEPC itself is temporary in nature and it cannot engage any its employee on permanent basis and their engagement will continue till KGBV scheme continue.
11.That it is humbly stated that JEPC is a society and itself is temporary in nature and it cannot engage any its employee on permanent basis and their engagement will continue till this scheme continue, as has been held in case of Nazir Ahmad passed in W.P.(S) No. 3477/2002, however subject to satisfactory performance.
12. That it is thus humbly submitted that appointment of the each petitioner is governed on the basis of contractual appointment letter and they were engaged on purely contract basis and that too under the particular scheme of government of India. Which is substantially funded by government of India, but government of India has not been made part in this writ petition. Therefore is otherwise hit by non-Joinder of necessary party."
8. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in the counter- affidavit, this Court is of the considered view that no further order need be passed in this case. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as such.
9. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed."
11. Relying upon the aforesaid orders, it has further been argued by Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners have the qualification and has experience of 9 2025:JHHC:20936 teaching for the last nine years till date. Therefore, the Respondent authorities should not replace them by another set of teachers sought to have appointed pursuant to the impugned advertisement and no purpose will be served by such replacement because the petitioners who have gained experience for more than approximately nine years teaching the students will be more efficient for the students and school in question.
12. He further drawn attention of this Court towards the educational qualifications of the petitioners and the Advertisement and submitted that it is evident from the Advertisement that the educational qualification for the teachers is Graduation with minimum 50% marks for the General Candidate and for the SC/ST, there is relaxation of 5% in the minimum percentage marks along with B.Ed. degree from recognized institution or equivalent examination/degree and/or Two-year Diploma Course in Preliminary Education. Further requirement is passing of Teachers Education Test, i.e., TET for the class 6 to 8 and for class 9 to 10. The requirement of TET is mandatory.
He contended that these Petitioners who are working since 2016 have the qualification of post-graduation and B.Ed. and petitioner no.1 is teaching the subject of History 10 2025:JHHC:20936 in Class 6 to 12 and the petitioner no.2 is teaching mathematics and science for class 6 to 10.
13. It is thus claimed by the petitioners that they may be allowed to continue in the service, since they are working for last 7 to 8 years and has gained experience and there is no adverse remark against them.
14. The Jharkhand Education Project Council (Respondent No.8) has filed a counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Jharkhand Education Project Council vehemently argued that the petitioners were engaged as hourly based part time teacher in Jharkhand Balika Awasiya Vidyalaya, Itki and Jharkhand Balika Awasiya Vidyalaya, Rahe. It has further been argued that both the petitioners were selected at local level, i.e., by School Management Committee and the said school is run by Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi under the scheme known as 'Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan' (SSA).
15. It has further been argued that the said 'Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan' (SSA) is a scheme for limited period and also funded by the State and Central Government jointly. It has also been contended that the petitioners were engaged for the purpose of part time teaching; whereas the present 11 2025:JHHC:20936 impugned Advertisement No. 1270 dated 18.09.2023 is for selection for full time teachers. Therefore, the engagement is now based on different policy decision of the state.
It has also been submitted that the nature of employment of the petitioners is purely transitory and the petitioners have no vested right to continue contrary to their terms of engagement. Therefore, the writ application is fit to be dismissed.
16. The respondent-JEPC has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Chembur Services Station2 in which it has been held that the temporary/contractual/ad hoc employees are not governed by other service jurisprudence or administrative law. Therefore, there is no element of statutory governance and such appointments like petitioners have limited right and the specific enforcement of the contract is not guaranteed. The respondent's counsel has further relied upon a decision in Satish Chandra Anand v. Union of India3 in which it has been held that, "State can enter into contracts of temporary employment and impose special terms in each case provided thereon inconsistent with the Constitution and 2 (2011) 3 SCC 710 3 (1953) 1 SCC 420 12 2025:JHHC:20936 those who choose to accept those terms and enter into the contract are bound by them, even as the State is bound."
The Respondent counsel has further relied upon the judgment by Orissa High Court in the case of Siba Prasanna Pathy Vs. State of Odisha4, in which it has been held that one ad hoc can be replaced by another ad hoc is not an abstract law of land.
17. After going through the rival contentions made by learned counsels for the parties; at this stage itself, it is pertinent to mention here that in the judgment of Orissa High Court the selection was related to the post of guest faculty. In the said judgment, the ground for replacement of one ad hoc or temporary appointee by another ad hoc or temporary appointee is that the teachers working are not more competent and replacing the teachers already working will make huge dent on the quality of teaching and moreover the guest faculty/temporary teacher will not be able to work without a free mind. In the said case, the new appointments were made pursuant to the change of policy decision.
18. The aforesaid facts do not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case since there is no change in the policy; rather the letters issued by the Jharkhand 4 2022 SCC OnLine Ori 1497 13 2025:JHHC:20936 Education Project Council which has been enclosed in the writ petition, clearly transpires that there are post of full- time teachers as well as temporary and short-term contractual teachers.
Therefore, there is provision for both teachers to be appointed for teaching in different classes and for different subjects in Jharkhand Awasiya Balika Vidyalaya and since 2016, till date the schools are being run by temporary/short term contractual teachers.
Therefore, the facts of this are quite different than the facts of the case in case of Siba Prasanna Pathy Vs. State of Odisha (supra).
19. After considering the facts involved in the present case as well as the judgment cited by the parties, it is evident that the petitioners were appointed as temporary contractual teacher to teach the students in the respective schools and they are continuously working on the post sanctioned for the said school. The respondents have not stated that those teachers were not efficient or there was any other issue for their continuation. The petitioners have fulfilled the educational and the provisional qualification. Both the petitioners have already crossed the age of 34 years and have given valuable nine years of service to the 14 2025:JHHC:20936 school after being appointed by the selection committee at the school level.
The respondents have admitted that the petitioners are appointed to render their services under the scheme known as Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and the said scheme is being run under the supervision of Jharkhand Education Project Council with the help of State and the Central Government.
20. The Deputy Commissioner of the concerned districts advertised for selection of teachers that too on temporary and short-term contracts and only difference is that the teachers now appointed will be full time teachers, but, those full-time teachers will also be on temporary and short-term contract basis. Therefore, the petitioners who are appointed as temporary and short-term contractual basis, will be identical to the teachers who are going to be appointed that too on temporary and short-term contract basis and the only difference is the amount of salary as well as mode of payment. There is otherwise no difference between the petitioners and those teachers who will be appointed pursuant to the impugned advertisement.
21. The judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir (Supra), in which it has been categorically held that if a person is appointed under 15 2025:JHHC:20936 the scheme, then the continuation of the said person will be coterminous with the scheme. Therefore, the person appointed will be continued till scheme continues or they can be terminated only because of their deficiency or misconduct or some other valid reasons.
22. The counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment enclosed in the supplementary counter affidavit; those judgements are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Moreover, in the identical situation, the Jharkhand Education Project Council has taken stand in W.P.(S) No. 157/2023 that the teachers appointed in the school shall continue till the scheme continues as has been held in the case of Nazir Ahmad And Ors v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. passed in W.P.(S) No. 3477/2002, and the coordinate Bench of this Court quoting the stand of Jharkhand Education Project Council has disposed of the writ petition.
Therefore, the Jharkhand Education Project Council has also in principle agreed in another identical case that the teachers appointed shall continue till the scheme continues.
23. Considering the facts as well as the law discussed here-in-before the appointment/selection sought to have been made pursuant to the impugned advertisement 16 2025:JHHC:20936 against the post on which these two petitioners are working, is, hereby, set aside. The respondent Jharkhand Education Project Council may continue the appointment against other posts advertised pursuant to the impugned advertisement issued vide Memo No. 1270 dated 18.09.2023.
As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir and another (Supra), the services of these petitioners shall be coterminous with the scheme.
24. As a result, the instant writ application stands disposed of in the manner indicated herein above. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/ N.A.F.R 17