Experience Gained As Part-Time Instructor Can't Be Counted Towards Eligibility For Headmaster Post: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has recently held that experience gained as part-time instructor is not equal to regular teacher's experience and such part-time service will not make candidate eligible for appointment to the post of Headmaster unless specifically provided in law.

Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,

“if the recruitment rules specifically require teaching experience as an Assistant Teacher in regular service, experience acquired merely as a part-time instructor lacking the attributes of permanency, administrative responsibility, and regular academic engagement cannot be treated as valid compliance with the eligibility criteria. To hold otherwise would amount to rewriting the rules, which is impermissible in law.”

Referring to the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers), Rules 1978, it was further held

“The duties discharged by part-time instructors are restricted in scope and duration and cannot be equated with the comprehensive academic, evaluative, and administrative responsibilities entrusted to Assistant Teachers. In the absence of any provision under the Rules, 1978, expressly recognizing part-time service as equivalent to regular teaching service, such experience cannot be imported to satisfy the eligibility requirement for appointment to the post of Headmaster.”

Petitioners pleaded that after enactment of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, a Government Order dated 31.01.2013 was issued. Pursuant to this, applications were invited for Part-time Instructors. Petitioner were appointed as part-time Instructors in view of the Schedule-1(b)(3)(ii) of Section 19 of the Act of 2009, for teaching Art Education, Health and Physical Education and Work Education for teaching Classes 6 to 8 in schools having more than 100 students.

The initial appointment was for 11 months with extensions being granted to the petitioner. it was pleaded that their work was satisfactory, without any complaints and they had been discharging full time duties on part-time jobs. In 2019, the Rules of 1978 were amended to include examination for recruitment.

Subsequently, Junior High School Headmaster/ Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2021 was held in which petitioners participated. In the result so declared, petitioners were held to be eligible for appointment to the post of Headmaster. However, due to certain litigation, results were revised and petitioners were still held to have qualified the written examination.

On 03.11.2025, the Director of Education (Basic) proceeded to issue a circular letter notifying the schedule for completion of the remaining steps in the procedure for selection which also included a format of an application where certificate of experience on the post of Assistant Teacher was required. This requirement was challenged by the petitioner as being in conflict with the eligibility prescribed under the Rules, 1978, as originally existing and as per the amended Rules 2019.

It was pleaded that “Rule-4 of the Rules, 1978, as amended in the year 2019, specifies the minimum qualification for the post of Headmaster, which requires five years of teaching experience in a recognized Junior High School or Senior Basic School run by the U.P. Basic Education Board. Each petitioner possesses teaching experience as envisaged under Rule-4, however, the impugned circular has been issued specifying teaching experience to be possessed in the capacity of Assistant Teacher/ Head Master, which is not envisaged under the Rules, 1978, as amended in the year 2019.”

The Court observed upon a harmonious and purposive interpretation of the Rules, it was clear that the teaching experience referred to in the Rules was referring to experience gained a duly appointed teacher and not as a part-time instructor. It held that Rules of 1978 did not include part-time teachers within the cadre of teachers under the Rules as the minimum educational qualifications, mode of engagement, tenure, and nature of duties of part-time teachers was different from that of regular teachers.

“It is well settled that eligibility conditions prescribed under the statutory recruitment rules must be strictly construed and scrupulously followed. Neither the appointing authority nor the court can dilute, relax, or substitute the essential qualifications unless such power is expressly conferred by the rules themselves. The purpose behind prescribing teaching experience for the post of Headmaster is to ensure administrative efficiency, academic leadership, and familiarity with institutional responsibilities acquired through regular service.”

It was held that where the Rules do contemplate certain specific qualifications and experiences, the Courts cannot dilute or rewrite the qualifications by treating unequal service as equal. Accordingly, it was held that experience as part-time instructor could be read to be equal to that gained as regular teacher.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Km. Dimple Singh and 12 others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others [WRIT - A No. - 17615 of 2025] 

Click Here To Read/Download Order