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