The Allahabad High Court has held that the continued engagement of teachers in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas on year-to-year contracts, without any step by the State to create posts for them or to pay them at par with regularly appointed teachers, amounts to a form of forced labour prohibited by Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

The Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya Scheme was launched in 2004 under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan to provide residential schooling to girls from socially, educationally and economically backward sections living in rural and remote areas, and was later merged into Samagra Shiksha. Teaching staff were first engaged through a selection process held under an advertisement dated 10.07.2009, and have since been appointed on contract from year to year on an honorarium.

It directed the State of U.P. to sanction posts of teachers in KGBVs within four months, to frame their service conditions at par with those prescribed for regularly appointed teachers up to the Intermediate level, and to have their claims for regularization considered within the same period.

Justice Pankaj Bhatia held,

“In conclusion, the continuous employment of the petitioners on contractual basis for years together without any step by the State to create posts, absorb the teachers or provide pay scales equivalent to those of regularly appointed teachers, is nothing but a form of forced labour prohibited by Article 23”

“The honorarium paid to the teachers is even less than what is prescribed for semi-skilled workers in fact referringing it as honorarium is a cruel joke.”

The petitioner in the leading writ petition has been working in a KGBV since 11.01.2010 on a contract renewed from time to time. In the connected petition filed by Reeta Verma and 376 others, 270 petitioners have served for more than 10 years and the rest for shorter terms. Part-time teachers are paid an honorarium of Rs.12,790/- per month, out of which 25% is deducted towards EPF, leaving Rs.9,592/- in hand.

It was argued for the petitioners that most of them have crossed the age limit for entering any other service and that the respondents have taken advantage of their vulnerability by denying them job security. The State runs its own and aided schools where salaries are paid under statute and teachers enjoy statutory protection, and the duties performed by the petitioners are similar to those of teachers governed by the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981.

Having set up these schools in discharge of the obligation under Article 21-A read with the RTE Act, it was argued, the respondents must extend reasonable conditions of service to the teachers who help them discharge it.

The petitioners pointed out that by Government Order dated 09.04.2026 the State raised the honorarium of Shiksha Mitras and part-time instructors in primary and upper primary schools from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per month and that of part-time teachers from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.17,000/-, payable for 11 months a year, while their own representation for Rs.17,000/- remains undecided. Under the Government Orders governing them, they are engaged for 11 months and 29 days with a gap of one day before the next academic year, their contracts are not renewed if their services are unsatisfactory or no longer required, and they may be terminated on one month's notice or, in extreme cases, without notice.

The Court noted that the petitioners were appointed after a selection process and that their role has been recognized, in studies of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, in the National Education Policy, 2020 and in the Ministry of Education's framework for implementation of Samagra Shiksha, as similar in all respects to that of regularly appointed teachers in State-run and aided schools. There was, it held, no material to show that their work was in any way dissimilar.

Rejecting the plea that no posts stood sanctioned and that the engagement was co-terminus with the scheme, the Court held that the scheme has run for over two decades, that the work is perennial in nature and the State is obliged under Section 8(d) of the RTE Act to provide teaching staff.

Turning to the RTE Act, the Court held that KGBVs fall within the definition of 'school' in Section 2(n). While Section 7(1) makes the responsibility for providing funds concurrent between the Centre and the States, Section 7(5) makes the State Government responsible for providing funds for implementation of the Act.

It observed that Section 8 obliges the appropriate Government to provide teaching staff, to ensure good quality elementary education conforming to the prescribed standards, and to ensure that children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups are not discriminated against.

“In the present case, the students in Government and aided schools are taught by well-paid teachers, whereas disadvantaged students in KGBVs are taught by teachers who are ill-paid and work under insecure conditions. This is a clear discrimination against the disadvantaged students studying in KGBVs.”

Comparing Sections 23 to 28 of the RTE Act, the Court held that teachers of KGBVs and of other State-run schools are subject to similar duties and obligations, but that KGBV teachers are not given even the benefit of the proviso to Section 24(2), which requires a reasonable opportunity of hearing before disciplinary action. It also noted that Rule 20 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 requires terms of service to be notified so as to create a professional and permanent cadre, but that no such rules have been framed for KGBV teachers, whose appointment, salary and service conditions continue to be governed by Government Orders.

Taking up what it described as the purity of means, the Court held,

“In the present case, although the end, namely education of deprived students, especially girls, is laudable and has achieved considerable success, as is evident from the reports of the Ministry of Education and NCERT, regrettably the means adopted are not: the teachers have been paid inadequately, denied any security, and continued for years together on a paltry honorarium without any step towards regularizing their services. This is clearly violative of the petitioners' rights under Articles 14 and 23 in Part III, and inconsistent with the Directive Principles in Part IV, of the Constitution of India.”

Referring to the doctrine of purity of means as considered by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India, the Court held,

“engaging the teachers on contract for 11 months and 29 days, with a gap of one day before the next academic year, and prescribing in the contract that it will not be renewed if their services are not required, that too without any notice, cannot be held to be consistent with the constitutional mandate under Part III of the Constitution of India and is also violative of the mandate of the RTE Act.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the State Government to create posts of teachers for KGBVs in Uttar Pradesh keeping in view the mandate of the Schedule to the RTE Act, to frame the service conditions of all teachers working in KGBVs, including those who are not petitioners, at par with those prescribed for regularly appointed teachers up to the Intermediate level, to have the claims for regularization against the posts so created considered by the competent authority having regard to qualifications and length of service, and to revise the honorarium periodically to bring it at par with the salaries of teachers in its own and aided schools, all within four months.

Until those steps are taken, all teachers working in KGBVs, including the petitioners, are to be paid honorarium at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per month with effect from the date of the judgment and are entitled to protection of their services under Section 24(2) of the RTE Act. The Court clarified that the Central Government is responsible for sharing the expenditure as agreed and that the State cannot plead that the directions must await sanction of central funds, being free to recover the central share on the principle of 'pay and recover'.

The writ petitions were disposed of.