The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Haryana to consider and regularise guest faculty teachers and lecturers working in government schools for nearly two decades while observing that the widespread reliance on contract teachers reflected an organised drift towards commercialisation and cost-cutting in educational institutions.Allowing a writ petition filed by teachers engaged during 2005-06 as Guest Faculty Teachers/Lecturers against vacant teaching posts in government schools, Justice Sandeep Moudgil held that the State could not continue to treat educators as stop-gap arrangements after extracting regular teaching work from them for almost 20 years.Referring to increasing contractualisation of teaching jobs in public education, Justice Moudgil asserted: “The widespread reliance on contract teachers reflects a systematic trend towards commercialisation and cost-cutting in educational institution by recruiting educators on temporary basis. Institutions bypass standard pay scales and benefits compromising both the financial dignity of the teaching profession and the long terms quality of the student instruction,” the court observed.Laying emphasis on the larger social role of teachers, Justice Moudgil added the Court was sanguine of the fact that the significance of a teacher’s role in society as well as nation could not be understated. They were the “cornerstone of the society, laying a vital role in shaping young minds.”The matter was placed before Justice Moudgil’s Bench after the petitioners sought regularisation under the Haryana Government’s policy dated June 18, 2014. The State opposed the plea on the ground that the petitioners were appointed only as a stop-gap arrangement and not through the regular recruitment process contemplated under statutory rules. It argued that they were, therefore, not entitled to regularisation under the policy. The State further contended that reservation policy was not followed and preference was granted to local candidates while engaging guest faculty teachers.Rejecting the contentions, Justice Moudgil held the very object of the policy would be defeated if such an interpretation was accepted. “This Court is unable to accept the said contention. The policy dated June 18, 2014, itself was framed to grant benefit of regularisation to contractual/ad hoc employees who had rendered long service under the State. If the contention of the respondents is accepted, the very purpose of the policy would stand defeated because every contractual employee by definition enters service de hors regular recruitment,” Justice Moudgil asserted.The court recorded that the appointments were neither clandestine nor backdoor entries. “Applications were invited, eligible candidates were considered and merit lists were prepared. The petitioners admittedly possessed the prescribed qualifications on the date of engagement and were working against available vacancies,” the Bench noted.The court pointed out that the State itself had continued the petitioners in service for nearly two decades because regular teaching requirements persisted in government schools. It also noted that the 2014 policy itself contained provisions for adjustment of the reservation roster at the stage of regularisation.The Bench further observed that no material had been placed on record to suggest fraud, manipulation or concealment in the appointments. Holding that the eligibility conditions under the 2014 policy stood “substantially satisfied”, the court observed that the petitioners had completed far more than three years of service as on May 28, 2014, continued in service, possessed the requisite qualifications, and had satisfactory work and conduct records.Taking a note of the litigation history, Justice Moudgil observed the matter was earlier adjourned sine die in May 2018 after a Full Bench of the High Court struck down the regularisation policies dated June 16 and June 18, 2014. However, the court noted that the legal position no longer survived after the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the policy.“Once the Supreme Court has upheld validity of the policy, the broader objection against permissibility of regularisation itself collapses and the controversy narrows only to fulfillment of policy conditions,” Justice Moudgil observed.Rejecting the State’s argument that the teachers had continued only because of interim court protection, the Bench said judicial orders merely protected them from arbitrary displacement and the State had voluntarily continued to utilise their services because vacancies continued to exist.“Another aspect of the matter which cannot be ignored by this Court is that the respondents themselves are authors of the entire engagement process which they now seek to criticize for denying regularisation to the petitioners. The petitioners did not appoint themselves in service,” Justice Moudgil observed.The Bench repeatedly underlined that the prolonged continuation of the petitioners itself established the permanent nature of the requirement. “Since the petitioners in the instant case have been working for past 20 years on contract in govt. schools which ipso facto compels this Court to infer that for 20 years they cannot be used as ‘spares’ to fill arbitrary gaps as they have to be treated at par with the other teachers working on regular posts since the vacancies continued to exist,” Justice Moudgil observed.Allowing the petition, the High Court directed the respondents to “consider and regularise the services of the petitioners in terms of policy dated June 18, 2014, within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order with all consequential service/retirement benefits.”