Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
Manoj Kumar Sharma & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Others – Respondents
CWPOA No. 6612 of 2019
Decided On : 17-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Hemant K. Verma and Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocates General, Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate.

Perpetual outsourcing of perennial public functions like school IT education unconstitutional; long-serving teachers entitled to regularization on parity grounds, prohibiting ad-hocism and upholding legitimate expectations under Articles 14, 16, 21.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Regularization of outsourced employees - Computer teachers engaged through service providers for over two decades to impart IT education in government schools, a perennial public function - State created cadre of PGT Informatics Practice with experience qualification seemingly to benefit such teachers, but open selection processes either not qualified by petitioners or abandoned - Perpetual outsourcing and ad-hocism deprecated as violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 - Long service creates legitimate expectation against arbitrary denial of regularization - Parity with other categories like PTA, Gramin Vidya Upasak and Para Teachers whose services regularized despite initial scheme appointments - State obligated to regularize without relegating to open competition where irreversible prejudice caused by age and inaction (Paras 21-33).

(B) Constitutional Law - Articles 14, 16 and 21 - Ad-hocism in public employment for perennial needs unconstitutional - Outsourcing as temporary measure only; prolonged temporary engagement deprives security, benefits and progression - Directions for regularization via supernumerary posts where needed, with arrears and consequential benefits, as in Supreme Court precedents on similar facts (Paras 22-24).

Facts of the case:
Petitioners working as computer teachers for more than two decades via agencies outsourced by state for IT education in schools. Sought regularization as PGT from initial engagement with consequential benefits. State countered they are private employees, must compete openly; prior recruitments held but petitioners either did not qualify or processes stalled.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed; respondents directed to regularize petitioners' services at par with specified categories from date of filing petition, completing within twelve weeks, with all consequential benefits.

Issues: Whether long-serving outsourced teachers entitled to regularization despite outsourcing; validity of state's ad-hocism and denial of parity; scope of writ court to direct policy for public function discharge.

Ratio Decidendi: Outsourcing cannot perpetuate for core, perennial education needs; state's inaction and rule relaxations create legitimate expectation for regularization; discrimination in treating categories differently absent rational basis; writ jurisdiction extends to remedying administrative omissions offending equality and fairness.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. outsourced it teaching in schools since 2001. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. prior court directed regularization policy exploration. (Para 6)
3. long service warrants parity regularization. (Para 7 , 12 , 18 , 21)
4. pgt(ip) cadre created with experience qualification. (Para 8 , 9 , 16)
5. recruitment rules upheld against equality challenge. (Para 10 , 11 , 13)
6. state defends open recruitment per rules. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 19)
7. no jurisdiction for backdoor regularization. (Para 20 , 22)
8. sc deprecates ad-hocism in perennial employment. (Para 23 , 24)
9. outsourcing temporary for perennial state functions. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
10. legitimate expectation mandates regularization. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
11. discrimination against outsourced vs scheme teachers invalid. (Para 31 , 32)
12. regularize services with consequential benefits. (Para 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive relief :-

“That the respondents may kindly be directed to take over the services of the applicants as Post Graduate Teachers (IP) on regular basis in the Education Department with effect from the date of their initial engagement as made by IT Company/private company for imparting IT education in government schools under respondent department with all the consequential benefits.”

2. Petitioners are working as Computer Teachers for more than two decades in Government Senior Secondary Schools (for short “Schools”) in the State of Himachal Pradesh. They have been employed by independent agencies, engaged by the State Government from time to time to provide infrastructure and manpower in the schools for teaching the subject

3. The Information Technology (IT) was introduced as an additional subject for the students of Classes 9th to 12th in 234 Schools in the State during academic session 2001-02. Two entities namely M/S Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (ECIL) and Maharashtra Institute of Advanced Electronic and Computer Technology (MIAECT) were engaged to provide infrastructure and manpower by the State Government. In the second phase i.e. during academic session 2002-03, the State Government engaged RCC Chandigarh, later merged with DOEACC Society, New Delhi to start IT Education in 260 additionally upgraded GSSS. In the year 2005, the services of DOEACC Centre, Chandigarh were availed to cover 588 Schools of the State. Subsequently, the services of M/S Everon Education Ltd were engaged for the period of 2008-2012 for providing the infrastructure and manpower to impart IT Education in 968 GSSS in the State. At the time of filing of the petition, the National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT), Chandigarh had been providing required services.

4. The appointment, retrenchment, transfer, reallocation, payment and salary etc. in respect of IT Teachers in the State of Himachal Pradesh was assigned to the aforesaid agencies/service provider(s).

5. In short, the State Government has outsourced the provisioning of infrastructure and manpower for imparting IT Education in the State to run Schools since 2001-02.

6. The uncertainties enduring the careers of outsourced IT teachers had resulted in their taking recourse to legal remedies. A batch of writ petitions along with LPA No. 352 of 2012 had come for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. LPA No. 352 of 2012 was outcome of judgment dated 12.1.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 14550 of 2008. The said batch of the matters was disposed of vide order dated 6.5.2014 in following terms: -

“2. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Advocate General made statement at Bar that the State/competent Authority had made a decision not to dislodge the appellant/writ petitioners, who are manning the posts as on today, despite of the fact that in terms of the directions passed in various cases, the State has to adjusted 767 candidates on the recommendation made by the Subordinate Selection Board. His statemen