Punjab and Haryana High Court orders regularisation of Chandigarh’s long-serving SSA teachers

The Punjab and Haryana High Court says contractual educators meet due process standards, directs the Chandigarh administration to absorb all qualified teachers within six weeks, and flags misuse of the Uma Devi ruling.

Justice Bansal held that Uma Devi judgment could not be stretched to deny relief where recruitment was lawful.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on November 14 ordered the regularisation of all Chandigarh teachers appointed under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) who have completed more than 10 years of service, holding that the administration cannot “misuse” contractual labels to deny them the rights of regular employees.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal directed the Union Territory administration and the Centre to regularise eligible members of the SSA cadre within six weeks. If they fail to do so, he held, the teachers “shall be deemed to be regularised” from the expiry of that period.

Chandigarh appointed over 1,300 teachers under the SSA between 2005 and 2014 after public advertisements, written tests and verification of qualifications. Although the appointments replicated the procedure for regular government teachers, the educators remained on annual contracts, with the administration citing a lack of sanctioned posts.

Story continues below this ad

A 2014 communication from the Government of India sanctioned more than 1,100 regular posts for Chandigarh but simultaneously directed the Union Territory to continue employing 647 masters and 728 primary teachers on a contract basis under the SSA. Efforts by the Chandigarh administration to merge or regularise this cadre failed when the Centre rejected the proposal in 2021, invoking the Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi, which limits regularisation of irregular appointments.

‘Uma Devi ruling can’t be used to justify exploitative engagements’

Justice Bansal held that Uma Devi judgment could not be stretched to deny relief where recruitment was lawful. “They were selected after following due selection process…for all intent and purposes, they were appointed in accordance with law and mandate of Article 16 of Constitution,” his order said.

Calling the administration’s reliance on the Uma Devi judgment a “self-contradictory stand”, the judge wrote, “The petitioners are not backdoor entrants and they were appointed against posts sanctioned by Project Approval Board.”

Story continues below this ad

The court emphasised that the purpose of the Uma Devi judgment was to prevent “illegal or irregular appointments”, not to justify contracting employees indefinitely. Citing recent Supreme Court decisions in Jaggo vs Union of India (2024), Vinod Kumar (2024) and K Velajagan (2025), the judge said the court had consistently held that employees recruited through due process cannot be kept in a temporary status perpetually.

“The decision in Uma Devi cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the employer undertaking legitimate recruitment process to deny relief of regularisation,” Justice Bansal observed.

Allowing the petitions, the court directed, “Respondents are hereby directed to regularise the petitioners who have been appointed under SSA and are working for more than 10 years as on date i.e. 14.11.2025. The needful shall be done within six weeks…If no order of regularisation is passed within 6 weeks, they shall be deemed to be regularised.”

The bench further ordered that this reasoning be applied to “all similarly situated teachers” to avoid repetitive litigation.