'Sikhya Provider' Helped In Education Of Punjab's Remote Area, Depriving Them From Age Relaxation In Teacher Recruitment Is Against Constitution: P&H HC
The Punjab & Haryana High Court said that “Sikhya Providers” under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) are entitled to age relaxation in a government recruitment exam, depriving them from the relaxation would be violative of Article 21-A of the Constitution.Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri said, "Sikhya Providers becoming appointed to teach the students in the...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court said that “Sikhya Providers” under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) are entitled to age relaxation in a government recruitment exam, depriving them from the relaxation would be violative of Article 21-A of the Constitution.
Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri said, "Sikhya Providers becoming appointed to teach the students in the government schools, thus for ensuring the upliftment of the cause of education, through education, become imparted in the remote locales concerned. Since therebys the salutary Constitutional provisions carried in Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, do also become achieved, thereupons the denial of relief to the present Sikhya Providers but would militate against the Constitutional objective, as enshrined in Article 21-A of the Constitution of India."
The Court was hearing the plea filed by Harsimran Kaur, challenging the selection process for the posts of CHT (Certified Head Teacher) and HT (Head Teacher) in Punjab.
The plea sought to quash the selection lists (dated September 4, 2019) and the withheld eligible candidates' lists (dated September 6, 2019), on the ground that the same are contrary to the Punjab State Elementary Education (Teaching Cadre) Group-C Service Rules, 2018, and the recruitment advertisement issued on March 8, 2019.
The petitioner challenged the relaxation of age and consideration of experience for candidates who had previously worked as Sikhya Providers, STRs (Special Training Resource), EGS Volunteers (Education Guarantee Scheme), and AIE Volunteers (Alternative and Innovative Education Volunteers). She argued that these individuals were not employed directly under the Education Department, and their past service should not have been counted.
After examining the submissions, the Court noted that Sikhya Providers were appointed under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, a scheme funded by the Government of India but implemented by state education departments.
The court found that they underwent rigorous screening and were paid under government funding, making them effectively government employees for recruitment purposes.
Speaking for the bench Justice Thakur said, "the aim and objective of the scheme floated by the Government of India, wheretos funds also became provided by the Government of India, through the relevant budgetary provisioning becoming made, besides when the scheme(s) were to be implemented and also became implemented, by the State Government concerned, thus leading to the Sikhya Providers becoming appointed to teach the students in the government schools, thus for ensuring the upliftment of the cause of education..."
The bench noted that he notification issued on February 26, 2020, officially recognized Sikhya Providers and other volunteers as Primary School Teachers.
Although the notification was issued after the recruitment advertisement, the Court inferred that the state had always treated these volunteers as employees, justifying their eligibility for age relaxation and experience consideration.
In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed and the Court upheld the age relaxation and experience consideration for Sikhya Providers and similar volunteers.
Mr.SunnySingla,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Title: HARSIMRAN KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 127
