IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

209 (7 cases) CWP-20096-2021 Date of Decision: 14.11.2025 ARVIND RANA AND OTHERS ...Petitioners Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ...Respondents And Sr. Case No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)

No.

2. CWP-11021-2023 Prabhat Kiran and Union of India and Ors.

Ors.

3. CWP-22687-2023 Anchal Garg and Union of India and Ors.

Ors.

4. CWP-2425-2023 Surinder Kumar and Union of India and Ors.

Ors.

5. CWP-3561-2022 Anil Kumar Vashist Union of India and Ors.

and Ors.

6. CWP-3812-2022 Ujagar Singh and Union of India and Ors.

Ors.

7. CWP-8485-2023 Inderjit Kaur and Union of India and Ors.

Ors.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP No.20096 of 2021 and CWP No.3812 of 2022)

Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ayush Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP No.3561 of 2022)

Mr. Mahipal S. Yadav, Advocate for petitioner No.69 (in CWP-20096-2021)

Mr. Kulbir Singh Sekhon, Advocate for petitioners (in CWP-8485-2023)

Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.S. Rawaley, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP-11021-2023)

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jangra, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP Nos.2425 and 22687 of 2023)

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India (through video conferencing) with Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Senior Panel Counsel (through video conferencing)

for Union of India-respondents No.1 & 2 (in CWP No.2425 of 2023) and with Mr. Himanshu Malik, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India-respondent (in CWP No.11021 of 2023)

Mr. Anil Chawla, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India-respondent (in CWP No.20096 of 2021, CWP No.3561 of 2022 and CWP No.3812 of 2022)

Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Parvesh K. Saini, Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent-Union of India (in CWP No.22687 of 2023)

Mr. Lokesh Chander Aggarwal, Advocate for U.T., Chandigarh (in CWP-8485-2023)

Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Himanshu Arora, Additional Standing Counsel with Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Premi, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-20096-2021.

2. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order dated 07.05.2021 (Annexure P-45) whereby respondent has rejected their claim for regularization of service. They are further seeking direction to respondent to integrate services of the petitioners rendered under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (for short ‘SSA’) into the regular cadre of the Education Department, U.T. Chandigarh.

3. The Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India in 2004 visualized SSA as comprehensive and integrated programme to attain universal elementary education in the country. The said programme was launched in partnership with the State Governments and Local Self Governments. As per approved programme, States and U.T. were supposed to make appointment of additional teachers to comply with pupil teacher ratio prescribed under Right to Education Act (in short ‘RTE’). It was provided that new teachers would be appointed for opening new schools and additional teachers for existing schools. The maximum number of upper primary teachers would depend on the strength of upper primary sections. There would be minimum two teachers for new primary school and three teachers for upper primary schools. The salary of additional teachers will normally be allowed under SSA. States have their own norms of recruitment of teachers and payment of salary to new recruits. The states will be free to follow their own norms as long as these are consistent with the norms prescribed by National Talent Search Examination (NTSE). At least 50% new teachers should be women