Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Status Quo on Outsourcing of ICT Instructors Under Samagra Shiksha

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the State authorities to maintain status quo with respect to the engagement and working conditions of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Instructors employed in government schools under the Samagra Shiksha scheme, while issuing notice on a writ petition challenging a State decision to treat them as outsourced personnel.

The interim protection was granted by Justice Jai Kumar Pillai of the Indore Bench on February 5 while hearing a petition filed by Ravi Patel and several similarly placed ICT Instructors working across government schools in the Ujjain region of the State.

The petitioners have approached the High Court assailing an order dated November 14, 2025, issued by the Directorate of Public Instruction, Madhya Pradesh, which sought to reclassify ICT Instructors as “outsourced personnel” and shift their engagement to a private agency. According to the petition, the impugned action amounts to an arbitrary mid-stream alteration of a centrally sponsored education scheme framed pursuant to the National Education Policy, 2020, and disrupts the continuity of digital education in government schools.

Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Yamak Sharma submitted that the ICT Instructors were appointed strictly through official government portals on the basis of merit and were continuously engaged since the academic session 2023–24 under the ICT @ Schools component of Samagra Shiksha. He argued that the Central framework expressly mandates the positioning of ICT Instructors as a recurring and integral part of the scheme for a fixed duration, and that the State could not unilaterally alter the mode of engagement without amending or withdrawing the governing policy.

The petition details a series of circulars, directives and office memoranda issued by both the Union Ministry of Education and the State education authorities, recognising ICT Instructors as academic functionaries entrusted with teaching digital literacy, maintaining ICT laboratories and assisting classroom pedagogy. It further asserts that the instructors were consistently monitored, trained and paid under the Atithi Shikshak framework, thereby giving rise to a legitimate expectation of continuity for the prescribed scheme period.

On the other hand, the State was represented by Deputy Advocate General Kushagra Singh, who appeared on behalf of the Advocate General. The matter was heard at the admission stage, following which the court issued notice to the respondents.

Recording the submissions and considering the nature of the grievance, the High court directed that “respondents shall maintain status-quo in respect to working of the petitioners, so far as present petitioners are concerned, till next date of hearing.” The court further directed that notice be issued to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven working days, making it clear that failure to comply would result in automatic dismissal of the petition without further reference to the bench.

The petitioners have contended that education being a subject under the Concurrent List, the State is bound to implement a centrally sponsored scheme strictly in accordance with the Central framework. They argue that the State’s decision to label scheme-mandated instructors as outsourced personnel defeats the object of digital education, violates Article 14 of the Constitution, and results in uncertainty not only for instructors but also for students dependent on ICT-based learning.

Significantly, the petition does not seek regularisation or service benefits but confines itself to preventing arbitrary State interference during the subsistence of a five-year Central scheme. The petitioners have urged that any policy change can only operate prospectively and not to the detriment of those already engaged under a valid framework.

The High court has listed the matter after four weeks for further consideration, while continuing interim protection in favour of the ICT Instructors.

Case Title: Ravi Patel and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Hearing: February 5, 2026

Bench: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai