{"id":119154,"date":"2020-10-10T20:30:59","date_gmt":"2020-10-10T15:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=119154"},"modified":"2020-10-24T18:42:30","modified_gmt":"2020-10-24T13:12:30","slug":"supreme-court-rejects-ad-hoc-teachers-new-plea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/column-news\/supreme-court-rejects-ad-hoc-teachers-new-plea\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Rejects Ad hoc Teachers\u2019 New Plea"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
By Inderjit Badhwar<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Many astute observers of India\u2019s educational system had hoped that following the enunciation of the Modi government\u2019s ambitious New Education Policy, structural changes in what is admittedly a system in dire need of reform and modernisation, would follow in rapid succession. As is often the case when social game-changing reforms are under way, led by either an enlightened branch of the government or by a civil society incentive based on broad consensus, other arms of the State also pitch in to carry the momentum forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One related area crying out for amelioration is the burning issue of ad hoc teachers which has been pending before the courts. And it has been the fervent hope of academicians and the pedagogic community that the apex court, last week, would take some additional, decisive steps in solving what is really a burning social issue that concerns not only the teachers but also parents, students and school administrators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But there were disappointed faces when the Court finally ruled. In early September, India Legal<\/em> magazine had reported the Supreme Court\u2019s observation that lecturers and trained graduate teachers (TGT) being made to work without regularisation for years is complete ad hocism in the working of the education system. The Court found everyone liable to be blamed for this scenario because what was just an ad hoc arrangement never fructified into proper regularisation and no exam had ever been held for recruitment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe present dispute is a reflection of the mess in the education system where, starting from the primary level to the highest level, ad hocism seems to prevail in the appointment of teachers and lecturers. This, in turn, is having consequences for the students who need to benefit from the best education process,\u201d the Court remarked.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Our magazine reported that Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph issued collective directions while hearing several pleas, appeals and intervention applications from 659 persons, 547 of them being ad hoc teachers, including 84 lecturers and 463 TGT grade teachers. (Sanjay Singh & Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors<\/em>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, an application, seeking modification of the Supreme Court\u2019s order dated August 26, 2020, pertaining to appointment and regularisation of ad hoc lecturers and assistant teachers in the state of UP has now been dismissed by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy on October 5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The earlier order, aimed at cleaning up the messy system of teachers\u2019 appointments, had issued the following directions aimed at the State of Uttar Pradesh and the UP Secondary Education Service Selection Board:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Seeking further relief, ad hoc lecturers\/assistant teachers from colleges in Azamgarh, Devipatan (Gonda), Ayodhya and Lucknow divisions filed an application and prayed for modification of the order. They argued that the interests of equity and fair play would further be served if:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c(I) teachers having more than 10 years of experience could be exempted from appearing in examination<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c(II) The Court should direct the Government and Respondent Commission to conduct limited competitive examination confined to the subject, taught by such teachers<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c(III) more than one attempt should be given to such aspirants (teachers).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main contention behind these pleas was that the ad hoc teachers had been teaching a particular subject for more than 12-15 years. At this juncture, it would be nearly impossible for them to compete with fresh applicants who would have the obvious advantage of having a better command over the rest of the syllabus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The applicants were represented by Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi and Venkatramani. The applications were drawn up and filed by Shariq Ahmed, an advocate. The Supreme Court<\/a> dismissed their applications with the oral observation: \u201cWhat would have happened if we had dismissed the Appeals just as High Court did?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court\u2019s reference was to the earlier rejection in December 2015 by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, of the plea of ad hoc teachers seeking issuance of<\/p>\n\n\n\n