The Allahabad High Court has expressed strong concerns over the actions of officials in the Uttar Pradesh Education Department, accusing them of misleading the government regarding the regularization and salary payments of teachers.
The court has pointed out that officials have concealed critical facts, leading to the issuance of misleading government circulars on the matter.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal ordered the presentation of the issue to the Chief Minister within 48 hours and demanded action against the responsible officials.
The court has scheduled the next hearing in the case for 20 September.
Case Background
The case stems from the dismissal of around 1,000 ad-hoc teachers from secondary schools in November 2023.
Despite repeated court orders, the Education Department has issued multiple circulars regarding the adjustment of these teachers, sparking confusion and frustration among those affected.
Teachers appointed between 1993 and 2000 have filed a petition, arguing that the government is attempting to place them on the same footing as those hired after 2000, despite legal distinctions under Section 33-G of the regularization laws.
Representing the petitioner, Senior Advocate RK Ojha further highlighted a circular issued on 8 July 2024, by the Special Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh government.
The circular proposed re-employing teachers dismissed in November 2023, offering fixed monthly honorariums of Rs 25,000 for high school teachers and Rs 30,000 for intermediate-level teachers.
However, this policy applied only to those hired after 2000, leaving teachers appointed between 1993 and 2000 excluded from the arrangement, despite their eligibility for regularization under Section 33-G.
Advocate Ashok Khare also pointed out the government’s failure to pay salaries, despite a court order from 4 January 2024, which had instructed the continuation of salary payments for teachers affected by the November 2023 dismissal.
The Supreme Court had rejected the government’s appeal against this order, yet salaries remained unpaid.
In defense, Additional Advocate General Ajit Singh stated that the government was working on a decision regarding the regularization and adjustment of the dismissed teachers.
He noted that two distinct categories of cases exist: those involving teachers appointed before 2000, who are covered by Sections 33-B, C, F, and G, and those appointed after 2000, whose cases fall under a separate Supreme Court ruling in the Sanjay Singh case.
Education Department Proposes 11-Month Contracts
The Education Department has already issued a circular to handle the latter group, proposing their adjustment on an 11-month contract with a fixed honorarium.
However, the court criticized the Education Department for blurring the lines between these two groups, accusing officials of deliberately complicating the issue by issuing contradictory circulars that do not align with legislative intent.
Justice Agarwal’s ruling emphasized that the misleading actions of the department had created unnecessary confusion and called for urgent corrective action.
Also Read: Allahabad HC Reduces Sentence For Convicted Rapist; Citing Reformative Possibilities
