Patna High Court
Rajesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 27 January, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1003 of 2025
======================================================
1. Rajesh Kumar Singh Son of Ram Pujan Singh, resident of Village- Mashrak
Barhiya Tola, Mashrak, P.S. - Mashrak, District- Saran Chapra.
2. Tapan Kumar Singh, Son of Rajbanshi Singh, Resident of village-
Mirpurjuara, P.S. - Awatar Nagar, District - Saran (Chapra).
3. Vishal Prasad, Son of Nirmal Kumar, resident of Katra Khajanchi Mandir,
P.S. - Chhapra, District- Saran, Chapra.
4. Savitri Kumari, Wife of Anshun Kumar Singh, resident of village-
Majalishpur, P.S. - Kopa, District - Saran Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Education Department,
New Secretariat Patna, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary Education Department Government of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat Patna,.
4. The District Education Officer, Chhapra, Saran.
5. The Block Education Officer, Chhapra, Saran.
6. The Principal Sadhu Lal Prithvi Chand +2 School Chhapra, Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhirendra Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Additional Advocate General (4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-01-2025
Heard Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned AAG 4 for
the State.
2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present
writ petition have sought inter alia following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter :-
Patna High Court CWJC No.1003 of 2025 dt.27-01-2025
2/10
"i. For issuance of appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions to the respondents
authority to set aside letter no.09/B1, bi, Pa, Ra,
09/2015-325
dated 30.03.2024 issued by Mr.
Kanhaiya Prasad Srivastava, Director, Secondary
Education, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar
whereby and whereunder direction has been issued to
the concern authorities, not to take the service of
guest teacher in Higher Secondary School of the state
with effect from 01.04.2024 by which petitioners
have terminated from the post of guest teacher in
Sadhu Lal Prithvi Chand +2 School, Chhapra Saran
without any notice or opportunity.
ii. For issuance of appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/s against the respondents
authority to re-appoint the petitioner on the post of
guest teacher, botany, Chemistry physical in SLP
C+2 School, Chapra Saran in which they have
already continue working for 05 years and 8 months
(13.07.2018 to 30.03.2024).
iii. For issuance of appropriate writ/ writs,
order/orders, direction/s to stay the operation of the
letter dated 30.03.2024 issued by the Director,
Secondary Education Govt. of Bihar because action
of the respondents are clear out violation the Art. 14,
16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
iv. Any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner
found entitled on the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners referring to the communication dated 30.03.2024
made by the Education Department, addressed to all the District
Education Officers to terminate the services of the teachers, who
were appointed on the temporary basis for teaching the students
Patna High Court CWJC No.1003 of 2025 dt.27-01-2025
3/10
of Class 11th and 12th and accordingly, the services of total
94738 teachers have been unilaterally terminated. He further
submitted that the petitioners fulfill all the requisite criteria to
be absorbed into service on permanent basis, in view of the fact
that though their appointment was temporary but the same was
made against the sanctioned post, as such, the unilateral
decision of the State Government cannot be sustained in the eye
of law.
4. Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State submitted that the appointment of the teachers was
made in accordance with the policy of the State Government
contained in notification dated 25.01.2018, which was notified
on 08.02.2018 for appointing teachers on temporary basis in
different subjects including the subjects, for which the
petitioners were appointed on temporary basis. The petitioners
were conscious of the terms and conditions contained therein
and now they cannot deny that they have not fully understood
such terms and conditions. The learned counsel specifically
refers to Clause 5 of the said notification dated 08.02.2018 and
submits that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, considering the terms and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1003 of 2025 dt.27-01-2025
4/10
conditions contained in notification dated 08.02.2018 by which
total 4257 teachers were required to be appointed in different
subjects, namely, English, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry,
Biology and Botany, as has been indicated in the said
notification, whereas from the order of the termination dated
30.03.2024, contained in Annexure P/3, it appears that the total
94738 teachers were appointed on temporary basis and posted in
different schools. As such, more appointment rather than what
has been notified by the State Government was made, vide
notification dated 08.02.2018. The terms and conditions of the
notification dated 08.02.2018 also stipulates the criteria
particularly in paragraph no.5, which is re-produced hereinafter
as follows : –
“jktdh;] jktdh;d`r ,oa jk’Vªh; ek/;fed f”k{kk vfHk;ku
varxZr mRdzfer mPp ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa vfrfFk f”k{kd
ds :i esa lsok nsus okys vfrfFk f”k{kd fo|ky; ds fy, f”k{kd
ds fu;kstu gksus rd dk;Zjr jgsaxsA”
6. Further, Paragraph number 6 of the said notification
prescribes for the applicable remuneration per month to be paid
to the Guest Teachers (Atithi Teachers) in the Higher Secondary
for which the State Government has also earmarked the
budgetary head.
7. The case of the petitioners is that on the basis of
the direction contained in letter no.325 dated 30.03.2024, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1003 of 2025 dt.27-01-2025
5/10
petitioners, who were discharging their duties as Guest Teachers
continuously were terminated, without providing them any
opportunity of hearing. As such, the petitioners have not made
out their case to be considered for appointment on regular basis
and for regularization their services.
8. In paragraph no.9 of the writ petition, the statement
has been made that after the advertisement of M.TREI published
by the BPSC, all the Guest Teachers have been appointed, i.e., a
total 4257 Guest Teachers (Athithi Teachers) and such number
of vacancies have been kept reserved for the Guest Teachers as
communicated vide letter no.371 date 03.07.2023 and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted
that the conditions stipulated in paragraph no.5 of the Gazette
notification dated 08.02.2018 makes it mandatory to be
followed at least when the notification stipulates the total
number of Guest Teacher to be 4257.
9. I find that the notification has been issued by the
State Government in exercise of power conferred under Article
166/162 of the Constitution of India and the State Government
being author of the said notification now cannot terminate the
petitioners that too without giving them due opportunity of
hearing.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1003 of 2025 dt.27-01-2025
6/10
10. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No. of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.5580 of 2024]
(Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors.) and another after
considering the case of the temporary employees, contractual
employees and the employees like present one, who have been
appointed by the State Government. I find it proper to refer
Paragraph Nos.20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27 of the case of Jaggo
Vs. Union of India & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 5580 of 2024), in
which taking note of the judgment passed in Vinod Kumar and
Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. case, reported in (2024) 1
S.C.R. 1230, the Hon’ble Apex Court has made following
observations, which are reproduced hereinafter :-
“20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi
(supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have
rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and
necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The
said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and
illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional
requirements. However, where appointments were not
illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had
served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned
functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and
humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged,
continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks
inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time,
transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a
scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent
judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs.
Union of India & Ors.[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230, it was held that
held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny
regularization of service to an employee whose appointment
was termed “temporary” but has performed the same duties
as performed by the regular employee over a considerable
period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant
Patna High Court CWJC No.1003 of 2025 dt.27-01-2025
7/10paras of this judgment have been reproduced below:
“6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi
(supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with
the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances
under which the appellants were employed and have
continued their service. The reliance on procedural
formalities at the outset cannot be used to
perpetually deny substantive rights that have
accrued over a considerable period through
continuous service. Their promotion was based on a
specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent
circular, followed by a selection process involving
written tests and interviews, which distinguishes
their case from the appointments through back door
entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also
distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal”
appointments underscoring the importance of
considering certain appointments even if were not
made strictly in accordance with the prescribed
Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been
made illegally if they had followed the procedures of
regular appointments such as conduct of written
examinations or interviews as in the present case…”
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the
initial label of the appellants’ engagements and the
outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts
must look beyond the surface labels and consider the
realities of employment: continuous, long-term service,
indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or
illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing
regularization simply because their original terms did not
explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was
belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of
fairness and equity.
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment
contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader
systemic issue that adversely affects workers’ rights and job
security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy
has led to an increase in precarious employment
arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job
security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been
criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour
standards. Government institutions, entrusted with
upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an
even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative
employment practices. When public sector entities engage
in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the
detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also
Patna High Court CWJC No.1003 of 2025 dt.27-01-2025
8/10
sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of
which India is a founding member, has consistently
advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of
workers. The ILO’s Multinational Enterprises Declaration
encourages companies to provide stable employment and to
observe obligations concerning employment stability and
social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should
assume a leading role in promoting employment security,
particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could
exacerbate long-term unemployment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government institutions, often
face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the
foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have
been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have
increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term
obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in
several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees
engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and
integral to the functioning of an institution are often
labeled as “temporary” or “contractual, even when
their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of the dignity,
security, and benefits that regular employees are
entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are
frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as
seen in the present case. This practice undermines
the principles of natural justice and subjects
workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless
of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary
employees often find themselves excluded from
opportunities for skill development, promotions, or
incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in
their roles, creating a systemic disparity between
them and their regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed
by temporary employees, effectively replacing one
set of exploited workers with another. This practice
not only perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the
obligation to offer regular employment.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1003 of 2025 dt.27-01-2025
9/10• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary
employees are often denied fundamental benefits
such as pension, provident fund, health insurance,
and paid leave, even when their tenure spans
decades. This lack of social security subjects them
and their families to undue hardship, especially in
cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is
imperative for government departments to lead by example
in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers
on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when
their roles are integral to the organization’s functioning, not
only contravenes international labour standards but also
exposes the organization to legal challenges and
undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment
practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of
unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the
principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to
embody. This approach aligns with international standards
and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to
follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of
labour practices in the country.”
11. The petitioners can not be terminated by any
executive order, as such, the directives contained in Letter
No.352 dated 30.03.2024 cannot override the government
notification dated 08.02.2018, which has been issued after
approval of the Governor of Bihar. Accordingly, the impugned
letter no.325 dated 30.03.2024 cannot be sustained in the eye of
law.
12. The competent authorities are directed to rectify
their action forthwith and pass a reasoned order after giving due
opportunity of hearing to all the affected persons in accordance
with law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1003 of 2025 dt.27-01-2025
10/10
13. With the above observation/direction, the present
writ petition is allowed.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 30.01.2025 Transmission Date NA