The Calcutta High Court quashed the regularisation of services of 313 volunteer teachers appointed under the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration and held that the appointments were illegal, lacking statutory backing and contrary to the provisions governing employment under the Administration. The Division Bench heard writ petitions challenging the actions of the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration involving the engagement, continuity, and regularisation of volunteer teachers recruited without adherence to prescribed statutory procedures and sanction. The petitioners contended that the appointments were made arbitrarily and without authority under the controlling legal framework, resulting in an adverse impact on other eligible candidates and on the rule of law itself.
The challenge arose from decisions taken by the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration to regularise the services of 313 volunteer teachers who had been engaged in government-aided schools within the territory. The Administration had initially appointed these individuals as volunteers, and later issued orders regularising their services as permanent employees. This course of action was contested on the grounds that no enabling provision existed in the statutory scheme under which the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration operated to permit such regularisation, and that the entire process circumvented established recruitment norms and principles of fairness and equality.
Upon examining the matter, the High Court analysed the statutory powers and limitations of the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration. It observed that the legal provisions governing the Administration did not empower it to appoint or regularise volunteer teachers in permanent posts without following competitive selection processes or without specific legislative sanction. The Court noted that the framework provided for engagement of volunteers in certain capacities did not extend to conferring permanent employment status, and that any such transition to regular service required clear statutory authority, which was absent in the present case.
The Court held that the regularisation orders were ultra vires and illegal since they lacked an enabling provision in the parent statute or in any delegated legislation. The judges emphasised that the rule of law demands strict compliance with statutory mandates, particularly when public employment and the rights of individuals are at stake. It was observed that the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration could not, on its own motion, convert temporary, ad hoc, or volunteer positions into regular posts without fulfilling the requirements stipulated in law, including appropriate recruitment procedures and competitive examinations where mandated.
The High Court also considered the implications of the regularisation for other aspirants and candidates who had been awaiting lawful recruitment in the Education Department under the Administration’s jurisdiction. It noted that the appointments had effectively blocked sanctioned posts and had prejudicially affected the rights and prospects of other eligible candidates, thereby creating an unequal and unfair situation. The Court underscored the need to uphold principles of fair selection and meritocracy, and to ensure that public employment opportunities are not dispensed arbitrarily.
In striking down the regularisation orders, the High Court quashed the appointments of all 313 volunteer teachers with retrospective effect. The Court’s order declared that the individuals in question could not claim any legal right to permanence or continuity of service by virtue of the impugned regularisation, and that the Administration’s actions could not be sustained in law. The Court observed that the absence of statutory authority for such regularisation rendered the orders void ab initio.
The Calcutta High Court’s judgment reiterates the constitutional and legal mandate that public authorities exercise powers conferred upon them strictly within the parameters of law. It highlights that even administrative conveniences or well-intentioned steps must conform to statutory provisions and established legal norms. Where a public body exceeds its prescribed authority, the resulting actions are liable to be struck down, irrespective of the number of individuals affected.
By quashing the regularisations, the High Court has effectively returned the status of the volunteer teachers to their earlier positions prior to the impugned orders. The Court’s decision reinforces that employment in public institutions must be governed by statutory rules and cannot be established through administrative fiat. It further emphasizes the judiciary’s role in upholding legality and ensuring that statutory procedures governing appointments and regularisation are not bypassed.
The judgment will have significant implications for the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration’s management of its human resources, particularly in the education sector, and may necessitate fresh recruitment drives in accordance with lawful procedures to fill the relevant sanctioned posts. The Court’s order reflects a strict approach toward maintaining the rule of law in matters of public employment, holding that statutory authority and compliance with recruitment norms are indispensable for any regularisation of service.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.