The Allahabad High Court has asked the Uttar Pradesh government to explain whether it has any policy or concrete plan to regularise teachers who have continued to work on contractual appointments for more than 15 years.
Allahabad High Court Questions UP Government on Regularisation of Long-Serving Contract Teachers
The issue came before the Lucknow Bench in a petition filed by Archana Boodh, a contractual teacher working at a Kasturba Gandhi Residential Girls School in Amethi. The court, presided over by Justice Pankaj Bhatia, expressed concern over the consequences of ending a person’s contractual employment after such a long period of continuous service.
Teacher Served for 16 Years
According to the court record, Boodh began working as a contractual teacher on January 16, 2010. Her engagement was extended repeatedly over the years.
However, authorities declined to renew her contract through an order dated June 16, 2026. Her counsel argued that after around 16 years of service, the authorities should have considered her case for regularisation instead of simply ending her engagement.
The petitioner is around 39 years old, and her lawyer submitted that because of her age and the nature of her previous employment, finding a comparable fresh teaching opportunity could be difficult.
Court Seeks Direct Explanation From Education Department
The High Court has directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Education Department, Uttar Pradesh, to personally explain whether the state is considering any steps for regularising contractual teachers who have served for more than 15 years.
The court also asked the government respondents to file their counter-affidavits. The matter has been listed for further consideration on September 8, 2026.
Also Read: Jharkhand JPSC Exam Row PIL Filed in Supreme Court Amid Student Protest
Interim Relief for the Petitioner
For the time being, the court has protected Boodh from losing her employment.
The authorities have been directed to permit her to continue working on the contractual post until the next hearing. This is an interim arrangement and does not mean that the court has already ordered her permanent appointment.
No Personal Misconduct Allegation Against the Teacher
During the proceedings, the court examined information supplied by the authorities concerning other teachers who had been transferred from different schools because of issues involving students.
However, the court noted that there was no specific allegation of misconduct against Boodh.
This distinction was important because her contractual engagement had continued for many years, and there was no personal disciplinary allegation cited against her as the reason for ending the engagement.
Court Raises Wider Policy Question
The case is significant beyond the individual petitioner because the High Court has identified a broader question concerning teachers who have spent a substantial part of their careers working under repeated contractual extensions.
The court observed that teachers play an important role in society and expressed concern about a situation in which a person is allowed to work for many years and is then suddenly left without employment.
At the same time, the present proceedings should not be understood as a blanket direction that every contractual teacher with long service must automatically be made permanent. Courts have also repeatedly considered factors such as the manner of the original appointment, applicable recruitment rules and whether the appointment followed a lawful selection process.
What Happens Next?
The Uttar Pradesh government will now have to place its response before the High Court, particularly on whether it has any policy or proposal concerning the regularisation of contractual teachers who have served for more than 15 years.
For Archana Boodh, the immediate relief is that she can continue in her contractual position until the next hearing.
The broader question—whether long-serving contractual teachers in Uttar Pradesh should receive an opportunity for regularisation—will depend on the government’s response and the court’s further consideration of the matter.