2026:JHHC:1084 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2712 of 2020 --------- Premchand Shukla aged about 53 years S/o Rajendra Shukla, R/o Village & P.O.-Kawalkediya, P.S.-Lesliganj, District-Palamau. ....Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Ranchi, P.O. + P.S. - Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Director, Primary Education, School Education & Literacy Department, Ranchi, P.O. + P.S. - Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, At, P.O. and P.S.- Daltonganj, District-Palamau. 5. The District Education Officer, Palamau At, P.O. and P.S.- Daltonganj, District-Palamau. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Palamau At, P.O. and P.S.-Daltonganj, District-Palamau. ....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : None For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Shivam Singh, A.C. to S.C.-II --------- 08/Dated:-15.01.2026 1. None appears for the petitioner. 2. After going through the records, it appears that the Petitioner was engaged under the project, co-sponsored by the Central Government and the State Government, in the erstwhile State of Bihar between the period of 1978 to 1990 and he was engaged as an instructor in the centrally sponsored scheme namely Non Formal Education. It further appears that the claim of the Petitioner for absorption in the government service by the State of Jharkhand has no merit because he worked under the said scheme as part time instructor for two hours per day for which the fixed honorarium @ Rs.105/- per month upto 1994 and @ Rs.200 per month from 1995 onwards was admissible. The 2026:JHHC:1084 2 instructors were never appointed against any sanctioned post or in any scale of pay, rather were selected locally as volunteers for teaching at Non Formal Education centres for 2 hours per day till the prescribed period of the centre. 3. It further appears that the Petitioner was never a Government servant or was appointed against the substantive or sanctioned post and the work of the instructor was not an employment under the State Government but it was like social service. The Petitioner was engaged on purely temporary (daily) basis. The Non-Formal Education scheme was a time bound centrally sponsored scheme, which was wound up by the Government of India with effect from 01.04.2001. 4. Subsequently, the State of Jharkhand decided to close the scheme with effect from 16.05.2001 itself. Thereafter, the Government of Jharkhand had taken a policy decision as to whether the Non Formal part-time instructors/supervisors be rehabilitated with instruction to Order dated 03.09.2014 in W.P.(S) No. 2413/2003 and the State Government came out with the decision not to absorb/regularize the non-formal part time supervisor in Jharkhand which is evident from the Order dated 17.03.2015 in Memo No. 133 (vidhi) issued by the Primary Education Directorate, Ranchi. After getting the advice of the Law Department, the Government of Jharkhand has taken the decision not to rehabilitate the part time instructors of the defunct Non Formal Education program as is obvious from the order of the Primary Education Directorate, Ranchi contained in Memo No. 783 dated 24.05.2016. 5. It also appears from the record that this Court has 2026:JHHC:1084 3 already dismissed the Writ Petitions with similarly situated matters in W.P. (S) No. 3285 of 2003, W.P. (S) No. 3298 of 2002, and W.P. (S) No. 7867of 2012. Also, the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 649 of 2017 and L.P.A. No. 421 of 2017 has categorically ruled that the case of the Petitioners was not maintainable in the eyes of law and no case of regularization has been made out. The State has no scheme to continue the centrally sponsored scheme which has already been closed by the Government of India and such employees under the scheme have no right to claim or seek regularization. 6. Further, the order passed in L.P.A. No. 1489 of 2011 is not applicable in the case of State of Jharkhand because part time instructors/supervisors have not been rehabilitated and policy decision has been taken in this regard by the Government of Jharkhand and the same is annexed as Annexure-B to the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondent No.3. 7. It is now a well settled law that the continuance/engagement of the Petitioner under a specific scheme cannot be held to be employment under any establishment of the government and employment under such scheme cannot be held to be an employment under the formal cadre of the government establishment; as such, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) January 15, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 20.01.2026