Pune: Three Months After HC Rap, SC Dismisses PCMC Plea in Teachers’ Appointment Dispute

Pimpri Chinchwad, 6th June 2026: Three months after the Bombay High Court slammed the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC) for what it termed an “unethical” appointment process, the civic body suffered another setback as the Supreme Court upheld the HC order directing it to grant assistant teacher status to 51 teachers and pay them salary arrears from June 2024 under the Seventh Pay Commission scale.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan dismissed the PCMC’s appeal on May 29 and granted the civic body time until July 31 to comply with the High Court’s February 27 order. The apex court said the petitioners would be at liberty to initiate contempt proceedings before the High Court if the directions were not implemented within the stipulated period.

The controversy stemmed from the recruitment of teachers through the state education department’s Pavitra Portal for assistant teacher vacancies carrying the S-14 pay scale of Rs 38,600-1,22,800. However, after selection, the candidates were issued appointment orders as “Shikshan Sevaks” and offered a fixed monthly honorarium of Rs 18,000. The recruits were posted in Marathi-medium schools run by the PCMC for teaching Classes IX and X.

Aggrieved by the appointments, the teachers approached the High Court, contending that they had been selected against assistant teacher posts but were appointed as Shikshan Sevaks instead. The PCMC defended its decision, arguing that the candidates were required to complete a three-year tenure as Shikshan Sevaks before being granted the designation of assistant teacher.

Ruling in favour of the teachers, the High Court cited a communication from the Divisional Deputy Director of Education, Pune, which clarified that the Shikshan Sevak scheme was not applicable to the PCMC. The court held that teachers recruited for unaided municipal schools ought to have been appointed directly as assistant teachers.

The division bench of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Abhay J. Mantri had sharply criticised the civic body, observing: “By selecting candidates for the post of assistant teacher with an approved pay scale, publishing the general merit list indicating their position and pay band, and thereafter compelling them to accept appointment orders as Shikshan Sevaks, appears to us to be an unethical act and contrary to the advertisement.”

The court also faulted the PCMC for obtaining “cyclostyled undertakings” from candidates before issuing appointment orders, holding that such undertakings were extracted “under coercion, duress and against their free will.”