Court Emphasizes State’s Duty as Model Employer and Condemns Exploitative Temporary Employment Practices in Tribal Areas
In a landmark judgment dated September 3, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe) has set aside orders denying the regularization of teachers and staff in Government Ashram Schools of the Thane district, mandating that employees who have rendered continuous service for ten years or more must be regularized. The writ petition was filed by Namdeo Tukaram Dhonnar and others, challenging orders from the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane Region, which refused to regularize their services despite their long tenure.
The petitioners were appointed as secondary and primary school teachers on a temporary basis in remote tribal areas, often without formal advertisement or recruitment processes, to address the acute shortage of qualified teaching staff in inaccessible regions. Despite serving for periods ranging from 10 to 13 years, these employees were denied permanency benefits, regular pay scales, and continued to work under precarious conditions with fresh appointment orders issued annually.
The Court recalled its earlier rulings, notably the 2018 decision in Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir v. State of Maharashtra, which established that continuous service of ten years on sanctioned posts is the sole benchmark for regularization, notwithstanding procedural irregularities in initial appointment. The Court reiterated that the State must act as a model employer and avoid exploitative practices, especially in vulnerable tribal areas where qualified personnel are scarce.
Rejecting the State's reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi & Ors. (2006) to deny regularization on grounds of procedural defects, the Court distinguished between illegal and irregular appointments. It held that long-serving employees engaged in sanctioned posts performing essential functions should be regularized as a one-time measure to prevent hardship and injustice.
The Court also referred to Supreme Court decisions in Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand and Jaggo v. Union of India, which emphasize fairness and prohibit the misuse of temporary contracts to deny employees their rightful benefits. It condemned the exploitative nature of prolonged temporary employment, arbitrary terminations, and denial of career progression and social security benefits, drawing parallels with concerns raised by the International Labour Organization and foreign judgments such as Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation in the U.S.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the State to regularize the services of petitioners who have completed ten years of continuous service, effective either from the date they completed ten years or the date of filing the writ petition, whichever is later. Employees terminated during the pendency of the petition after completing ten years must be reinstated with financial benefits. The State was given three weeks to comply.
This judgment marks a significant step in safeguarding the rights of long-serving employees in government educational institutions, underscoring the constitutional principles of equality (Article 14) and protection of life and personal liberty (Article 21). It sends a strong message against exploitative employment practices, particularly in critical sectors serving marginalized communities.
Bottom Line:
Regularization of services of employees working for ten years or more in Government Ashram Schools is permissible even if initial appointments were irregular, provided they were made against sanctioned posts and fulfilled essential functions.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226, Constitution of India; Teacher Eligibility Test (as per Government Resolution No. RTE2010/M.No.572/P.T.-1 dated 13/02/2013).
Namdeo Tukaram Dhonnar v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972598
