SC permits the teachers belonging to the scheduled districts of Jharkhand to carry on with their teaching profession as a temporary relief, provided the order of HC stating that the approach of complete reservation with respect to the employment is inconsistent with the objectives of FRs must not supersede it.         

Facts-

⮚      The assignment of around 8423 teachers of government schools at the primary level from the scheduled districts of Jharkhand was canceled by the  HC of Jharkhand on 21st of September 2020.

⮚      The petitioners, in this case, were represented by the Former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and P.S Patwalia, Senior advocate to the SC. And the former Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for and on behalf of the respondents.

⮚      The bench of HC consisting of Judges Harish Chandra Mishra (Former Acting Chief Justice of HC of Jharkhand), S. Chandrasekhar and Deepak Roshan heard the petitioners who were the candidates belonging to the application for TGT in secondary education at government educational institutions.

⮚      The applicants were not provided with a letter of appointment to any of the schools belonging to the 13 scheduled districts of Jharkhand even after final selection for the reason that they were not the natives of those districts.

⮚      The question raised in all the petitions was whether the notification published in the Official Gazette by the State of Jharkhand on 14th July 2016 is unconstitutional.

⮚      A five-judge panel of SC during the judgment of Chebrolu L. Prasad's case decided that allotting complete reservation in the appointment of teachers from the Scheduled districts of Jharkhand is unconstitutional and is inconsistent with the Spirit of Equality followed in the Constitution of India.

⮚      The notification issued in the official gazette of Andhra Pradesh with the approval of the Governor confirming 100% reservation to the teachers belonging to Scheduled Tribe Category was declared void by a constitutional panel consisted of Former Judge of Supreme Court Of India Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra.

⮚      The Court in fact directed both the governments of the State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to pay the cost for violating the maximum limit in allotting reservations and was required to give justification regarding their action.

⮚      On appeal to Supreme Court against the order issued by the HC of Andhrapradesh which validated the notification issued by the government with respect to the reservation of teachers from scheduled Tribes, the apex court confirmed the existence of all those appointments exceeding the maximum limit of reservation in consideration of the applicants who have been selected as per the notification of government, specifying that it shall not have any prospective effect.

⮚      The court observed that the act of state government is unjustifiable and is inconsistent with the constitutional provisions and added that these kinds of absurd and obstructive movements from the part of a state government can’t be appreciated and neglected and reminded that those actions will be strictly thwarted from the very beginning itself.


     Thus, The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considering the facts leveled in the Special Leave Petition directed the counsel for the petitioners to give a copy of SPL to the respondents. The court permitted to submit a counter-affidavit prior to the future hearing and the teachers belonging to Scheduled Districts, and thus employed in the schools of Jharkhand were allowed to carry on their employment as an interim relief without getting affected by the order of the High Court.


This news is reported by Yashasvi Kanodia