Policy Decisions Can't Override Statutory Rules; Contractual Appointments Under Rules Mandating Regular Posts Deemed Regular from Inception: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-09-29

HP High Court: Teachers Hired on Contract Under Old Rules Mandating Regular Posts Must Be Treated as Regular Appointees from Day One

Shimla, HP – In a landmark decision affirming the supremacy of statutory service rules over administrative policy, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) recruited on a contractual basis when the governing rules only provided for regular appointments must be treated as regular employees from their initial date of joining. Justice Ranjan Sharma held that a government policy decision cannot override, amend, or supersede statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.

Case Background

The case, Som Dutt and Ors vs State of HP , was brought by twelve TGTs who were appointed between 2008 and 2012. Their recruitment process was initiated through advertisements in 2008-2009. At that time, the appointments were governed by the Himachal Pradesh Education Department, Class-III (School and Inspection Cadre) Services Rules, 1973, which only stipulated regular appointments for TGTs. However, the state government, citing a policy decision from 2004, appointed the petitioners on a contractual basis with fixed emoluments, denying them the benefits of regular service like pay scales, increments, seniority, and pensionable service from their joining date.

The petitioners challenged this, arguing that their appointment on a contract basis was illegal and violated the statutory rules in force at the time of their recruitment.

Key Arguments

• Petitioners' Stance: The teachers argued that their right to be considered for regular appointment crystallized when the advertisement was issued in 2008-2009, under the 1973 Rules. The subsequent introduction of contractual appointments through the new "Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2009" on October 22, 2009, could not be applied retrospectively to their selection process. They contended that the terms of the advertisement, being inconsistent with the statutory rules, were void.

• State's Defence: The State of Himachal Pradesh defended its action by citing a policy decision from 2004 to fill all vacancies on a contract basis. It also argued that the petitioners had accepted the contractual appointment and were therefore estopped from challenging the terms. The state further relied on a new 2024 Act which stipulated that service benefits would only apply from the date of regularization.

Court’s Landmark Ruling and Reasoning

The High Court decisively ruled in favour of the teachers, making several critical legal observations.

1. Supremacy of Statutory Rules over Advertisements and Policy Decisions

Justice Sharma emphasized a settled legal principle: recruitment must adhere to the statutory rules in force when the selection process begins. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in N.T. Devin Katti and Others versus Karnataka Public Service Commission to hold that candidates acquire a vested right to be considered for selection according to the rules existing at the time of the advertisement.

"In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between a statement or a term and condition in advertisement vis–a–vis recruitment rules, then, the statutory rules / regulations shall prevail," the court stated, referencing the apex court's mandate in Malik Mazhar Sultan and Another vs State of UP Public Service Commission .

The court concluded that the state's 2004 policy decision could not "override, amend or supersede or tinker with" the statutory Service Rules of 1973.

2. New Rules Cannot Apply Retrospectively

The judgment clarified that the New Rules of 2009, which formally introduced contractual appointments, could only operate prospectively. They could not be used to take away the vested rights of the petitioners, whose selection process had already commenced under the pre-amended 1973 Rules.

3. State Action Deemed Arbitrary and Exploitative

The court found the state's action of resorting to contractual recruitment, despite the existence of rules for regular appointment, to be an "exploitative tendency." It noted the unequal bargaining power between the job-seeking teachers and the state, holding that such unconscionable terms in the appointment contract were opposed to public policy and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

"The action of the State in resorting to contract nomenclature of recruitment certainly amounts to causing violence to the extant Statutory Service Rules of 1973," the judgment noted.

4. Parity and Non-Discrimination

The court also took note that the state had already granted similar benefits to four of the twelve petitioners based on a previous judgment. To deny the same relief to the remaining, similarly placed petitioners would amount to hostile discrimination.

Final Decision and Directions

The High Court partly allowed the petition and issued the following directives:

• The state authorities must treat the petitioners as regular TGTs from their respective initial dates of contractual appointment .
• All consequential benefits, including regular pay scales, increments, seniority, and retiral benefits, are to be granted.
• Actual monetary benefits will be restricted to three years prior to the filing of the writ petition in 2013, in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India versus Tarsem Singh .
• The judgment must be implemented within six weeks.

This ruling provides significant relief to the affected teachers and sets a strong precedent for upholding the sanctity of statutory recruitment rules against administrative overreach.