Once a Teacher, Always a Teacher: Supreme Court Says Instructors Working for 10 Years Hold Deemed Substantive Posts, Not Temporary Contracts

“Government Cannot Create a Permanent Workforce Through Perpetual Temporary Contracts” – In a judgment set to redefine service jurisprudence for contract-based public employees, the Supreme Court ruled that part-time instructors appointed under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) in Upper Primary Schools across Uttar Pradesh are not to be treated as mere contractual or temporary employees, but are, in law and in practice, teachers holding deemed substantive posts.

Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale drew a clear distinction between the labels used in contracts and the actual nature of employment sustained over time.

“Once the contract ends and the teacher continues to work uninterruptedly for a decade, the fiction of ‘contractual employment’ breaks. The post they hold is substantive — if not in name, then in effect,” the Court held.

“The Nomenclature is a Misnomer” – SC Rejects State’s Description of Teachers as ‘Part-Time Contractual’

The Court lashed out at the State’s repeated reliance on the original label of “part-time contractual” for these instructors, calling it legally hollow and factually deceptive.

“The business of calling these instructors as ad hoc, part-time or contractual is a misnomer and inappropriate. The reality of their service — not the label — must determine their status,” the Bench noted.

Significantly, the judgment observed that these instructors:

• Were appointed after formal advertisement and selection, with due regard to eligibility norms set by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE);
• Worked for 10 consecutive years, with no material gap in service;
• Taught full days, often up to eight periods, discharging duties identical to regular teachers;
• Were expressly barred from engaging in any other employment under the terms of their appointment.

“What remains of a part-time appointment when a teacher works all day and cannot earn income elsewhere? This is full-time work with no full-time recognition, and that cannot stand in the eyes of law,” the Court remarked.

“Substance Over Form”: Supreme Court Reads Creation of Posts into Long-Term Engagement

In one of the most crucial legal findings, the Court held that even if no formal posts were sanctioned, the nature and continuity of work, combined with the State’s own policy (one instructor for every 100 students), led to automatic creation of deemed posts.

“The appointments of these instructors are more or less of a permanent nature and against a post which is deemed to have been created substantively. The law does not demand a formal letter for what exists as reality on the ground,” the judgment observed.

It further stated that the need for these posts was not sporadic or experimental, but recurring and systemic, tied to the constitutional duty of the State under Article 21A.

“The scheme cannot run without them. The Right to Education cannot be fulfilled without them. Therefore, the posts they occupy are not temporary or illusory — they are integral and essential.”

“You Cannot Replace a Worker with Another on the Same Terms and Call it Reform” – SC Prohibits Ad Hoc Replacement

The Court reiterated the settled principle in service law that an ad hoc, temporary or contractual employee cannot be replaced by another of the same kind, adding that long-serving instructors cannot be discarded for fresh contractual hires.

“An ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee, nor a contractual by another contractual. Once a teacher is in place for 10 years under a government scheme, that teacher has a legitimate claim to continuity,” the Court stated.

It referred to the earlier judgment in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826), which had warned against the “misuse of temporary labels to perpetuate insecurity and deny rightful benefits”, finding clear parallels in the present case.

“Substantive Status Brings Legal Rights”: SC Opens Door to Regularisation and Equal Treatment

By declaring that the instructors hold deemed substantive posts, the Court has implicitly recognised their right to fair pay, parity in service conditions, and protection against arbitrary replacement.

It also invoked Rule 20(3) of the RTE Rules, which mandates that teachers appointed under the Act must receive pay and service benefits at par with similarly qualified educators.

“These instructors are not just placeholders — they are the foundation of rural education delivery. Their service is no less than any other government-appointed teacher. To deny them status is to deny the value of their work,” the Court observed.

Judgment Shifts the Legal Landscape for Public Contractual Workers

The ruling marks a major step forward in dismantling the legal fictions often used to exploit temporary and contract-based workers in government schemes.

“Labels cannot override lived reality. When duties, duration and dependency are all permanent, the law must recognise substance over form,” the Court concluded.

The judgment is poised to have far-reaching consequences, not just for the thousands of instructors under Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, but for contractual employees in other government programs, who may now assert a stronger claim to fair treatment and legal status.

Date of Decision: February 04, 2026