Bombay High Court Orders Regularization of Ashram School Teachers After Ten Years’ Service; Holds Prolonged Temporary Employment on Meagre Honorarium Amounts to Exploitation by State
Bombay High Court Regularizes Tribal Ashram School Teachers After Ten Years’ Service; Says State Cannot Exploit Long-Serving Employees Through Temporary Appointments and Meagre Pay
Facts
Six petitioners approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226 challenging orders dated 13 and 14 January 2026 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane, refusing to regularize their services on teaching and non-teaching posts in Government Ashram Schools. They sought regularization, regular pay scales, protection against termination and consequential benefits.
The petitioners had been appointed as primary and secondary teachers in Government Ashram Schools in Thane District and had rendered approximately 10 to 13 years of service. These schools operate in remote, hilly and geographically difficult tribal areas where the State faced difficulty obtaining qualified teaching staff. The petitioners were therefore engaged on daily-wage, clock-hour or honorarium basis to ensure that tribal children were not deprived of education.
Despite their long service, the petitioners were denied regular pay scales and permanency. Fresh appointment orders were issued every academic year with artificial breaks, and bonds were allegedly taken disclaiming any right to permanency.
In an earlier round, the High Court had directed consideration of employees completing ten years of service for regularization. Nevertheless, the Additional Commissioner rejected the petitioners’ claims, citing absence of interviews/due recruitment procedure, failure to satisfy eligibility conditions and, in some cases, absence of TAIT qualification.
Issues
The principal issues were:
- Whether employees serving Government Ashram Schools for ten years or more could be denied regularization because of alleged defects in their initial recruitment process.
- Whether absence of a public advertisement rendered their appointments incapable of regularization.
- Whether the principles in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi prohibited regularization.
- Whether Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir v. State of Maharashtra applied to the petitioners.
- Whether the petitioners should instead be relegated to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
- Whether prolonged engagement on temporary, clock-hour or honorarium terms amounted to exploitation by the State.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners principally relied on Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir, where the Bombay High Court had directed regularization of teaching and non-teaching staff serving Government Tribal Ashram Schools for ten years or more.
They contended that the Additional Commissioner had misinterpreted the earlier judgments and imposed requirements inconsistent with the settled regularization principle. They also cited numerous subsequent Bombay High Court decisions applying Madhukar Sadgir.
They argued that more than 2,000 similarly situated employees had already received regularization and that denying them equivalent treatment violated Articles 14 and 21.
They further submitted that the State, as a model employer, could not exploit teachers who had worked for years in difficult and remote tribal regions.
Importantly, the State’s assertion that the petitioners had not undergone interviews was contradicted by the High Court’s own order in the earlier round of litigation, which recorded that they had participated in a selection process and were selected after interviews.
They also argued that absence of advertisements was not decisive because appointments in Madhukar Sadgir had similarly been made without advertisements due to the peculiar staffing difficulties in tribal areas.
Respondents’ Arguments
The State first raised an alternative remedy objection, arguing that the petitioners should approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. It relied on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.
The State further argued that the petitioners:
- worked on clock-hour basis;
- had not disclosed actual working hours;
- had not established their mode of selection;
- raised disputed questions of fact; and
- had not completed the requisite ten years as of 31 October 2018 when Madhukar Sadgir was decided.
For Petitioner No. 6, it was contended that his service contained breaks and therefore was not continuous.
Reliance was also placed on State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal and Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi to argue that employees not recruited through a regular competitive process against sanctioned posts cannot be regularized.
Analysis of the Law
Ten Years’ Service Was the Crucial Benchmark
The Court first recorded that, by the date of the present petition, it was undisputed that all petitioners had completed ten years or more of service.
It also found that the grounds stated in the impugned orders were insufficient because the petitioners had in fact been interviewed before selection.
Long-Term Honorarium Employment Amounts to Exploitation
The Court applied Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir, which dealt specifically with employees working in Government Tribal Ashram Schools.
The circumstances justifying regularization included:
- sanctioned posts;
- availability of workload;
- difficulty in recruiting staff for remote tribal areas;
- State’s failure to conduct regular selection processes;
- continuous service for ten years or more; and
- payment of only meagre honorarium throughout this period.
The Court reiterated that requiring employees to continue working for years on meagre honorarium amounted to exploitation not expected from a welfare State, particularly because the Government is expected to act as a model employer.
Irregular Appointment Distinguished From Illegal Appointment
A central part of the judgment concerned the distinction between an illegal appointment/backdoor entry and an appointment that may merely suffer from procedural irregularity.
The Court relied upon Jaggo v. Union of India to emphasize that Umadevi was intended to prevent unconstitutional backdoor appointments—not to punish employees who have performed necessary governmental functions continuously for years where their appointments were not inherently illegal.
The Court reproduced the principle that where appointments are merely irregular and employees have rendered prolonged continuous service against sanctioned governmental functions, fairness may require regularization.
Uma Devi Cannot Be Mechanically Applied
The High Court rejected the State’s argument that later Supreme Court decisions were inconsistent with the Constitution Bench ruling in Umadevi.
According to the Court, Jaggo and Bhola Nath followed Umadevi “in the spirit in which” it was rendered.
Thus, Umadevi cannot be mechanically invoked merely because an employee’s original engagement was temporary or procedurally imperfect.
No Advertisement Was Not Fatal
The State also relied upon the absence of a public advertisement.
The Court rejected this contention because Madhukar Sadgir itself had considered similar circumstances where advertisements were not issued and nevertheless ordered regularization.
Accordingly, absence of advertisement in these peculiar circumstances did not defeat the petitioners’ claims.
Precedent Analysis
Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir v. State of Maharashtra
This was the controlling Bombay High Court precedent.
It held that employees who had completed ten years or more in Government Tribal Ashram Schools could be regularized in exceptional circumstances, particularly where posts were sanctioned, workload existed, employees served difficult tribal areas and the Government itself failed to conduct regular recruitment.
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1
The State invoked Umadevi against regularization.
The High Court held that the decision was intended to prevent illegal/backdoor appointments and did not justify indiscriminate rejection of claims by long-serving employees whose appointments were at most irregular.
State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429
The Court distinguished Daya Lal because the appointments there were temporary and were not against sanctioned posts. That factual situation materially differed from the petitioners’ case.
Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand
The Court noted that the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of retaining employees against sanctioned vacant posts for more than a decade under contractual nomenclature and then denying regularization.
Jaggo v. Union of India
The Court relied substantially upon Jaggo for the proposition that long-term performance of necessary and recurring governmental functions cannot be ignored merely because the initial appointment was temporary or irregular.
Earlier Namdeo Tukaram Dhonnar Proceedings
This was particularly significant because it involved the same petitioners.
In the earlier round, the Coordinate Bench had directed the State to follow the procedure in Madhukar Sadgir for employees completing ten years and had also directed consideration of minimum pay benefits.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the State’s attempt to distinguish Madhukar Sadgir was unsustainable.
The petitioners had completed the requisite service; their selection involved interviews; they had served in Government Ashram Schools where staffing difficulties were genuine; and the absence of advertisements had already been considered in analogous cases.
Moreover, the Madhukar Sadgir principle had been consistently followed in a series of subsequent decisions, making it inappropriate for the Tribal Development Department to deny similar treatment to these petitioners.
The Court also noted that several Government Resolutions issued between 2022 and 2024 provided for regularization before the impugned orders were passed, giving an additional reason to invalidate the rejection orders.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court allowed the petition and quashed the orders dated 13 and 14 January 2026 refusing regularization.
It directed that:
- Petitioners completing ten years must be regularized from the date of completing ten years or filing the present writ petition, whichever is later.
- Petitioners terminated after completing ten years and during pendency of the petition must be reinstated.
- Financial benefits must be granted from completion of ten years or filing of the earlier Writ Petition No. 6693 of 2023, whichever is earlier.
- All directions must be implemented within three weeks.
- No costs were imposed.
The ruling is therefore significant for its treatment of prolonged temporary government employment: procedural imperfections in recruitment cannot automatically be weaponized against employees whom the State itself has continuously used for essential work for a decade or more.
Case Details
Case: Namdeo Tukaram Dhonnar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:36184-DB
Court: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 6262 of 2026
Bench: Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe
Judgment by: Justice Aarti Sathe
Reserved on: 20 August 2026
Pronounced on: 3 September 2026
Result: Petition allowed; rejection orders quashed; regularization, reinstatement where applicable, and financial benefits ordered; compliance within three weeks.
