Ad Hoc Faculty Cannot Be Replaced By Similar Arrangement | J&K HC Directs University Of Kashmir To Retain Contractual Teachers | Court Slams Hire And Fire Policy As Detrimental To Students
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar has held that contractual or ad hoc employees engaged on academic arrangement basis cannot be replaced by another set of employees engaged on similar basis. The Court directed that such contractual employees shall continue to hold their posts until regularly appointed candidates are selected through due process as per the relevant recruitment rules. The Court disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging the university's decision to replace current contractual lecturers with fresh ad hoc appointments.
The petitioners in the group of writ petitions were engaged as lecturers, assistant professors, and instructors on contractual or academic arrangement basis by the University of Kashmir across various disciplines. Their services had been extended from time to time based on administrative decisions or interim court orders. They approached the High Court challenging fresh advertisements issued by the university for engagement of contractual faculty in the same posts and disciplines they were already serving in.
The petitioners contended that such replacement through similar contractual arrangements was illegal and unsustainable in law. They placed reliance on judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts to argue that contractual or ad hoc employees cannot be substituted by another set of similarly engaged employees. They cited the Supreme Court ruling in Manish Gupta & Anr. vs. President Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 485, and this Court's decision in Murad Ali Sajan & Ors. vs. UT of J&K & Ors., WP(C) No.2635/2022, which followed the same legal principle.
The petitioners also submitted that they had been working for years on academic arrangement basis and had acquired considerable experience. They claimed that the engagements were being terminated arbitrarily and unfairly without consideration of their service record or any performance-related grounds. They argued that the university’s actions were contrary to the principles of fairness and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The respondent university maintained that the petitioners were engaged for a specific academic session and that their engagements were never intended to confer any right of continuity. The university relied on the terms and conditions of the advertisement notices and undertakings executed by the petitioners to assert that they had agreed not to claim continuation or regularization. The university stated the need to invite fresh talent and claimed that repeated engagement of the same individuals would deny equal opportunity to other eligible candidates.
The respondent relied upon judgments of this Court in Afshan Majid & Ors. vs. State of J&K, 2008 (2) JKJ[HC] 550, and Rajani Kumari & Ors. vs. State of J&K, 2017 (1) JKJ[HC] 310, as well as State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajeev Singh & Ors., (2024) IV LLJ 320 MP.
Several petitioners challenged specific advertisements. In WP(C) No.708/2023, the petitioner challenged the advertisement for two positions in Foreign Language. In WP(C) No.249/2025, the petitioner assailed the call for applications in Electrical Engineering. In WP(C) Nos. 612/2025 and 665/2023, contractual faculty challenged similar advertisements in the Urdu and Civil Engineering disciplines, respectively.
In petitions WP(C) Nos. 283/2023 and 3132/2023, some petitioners sought regularization. The Court transferred such matters to the Central Administrative Tribunal, observing that the relief sought falls under service matters.
The Court also examined the situation in the School of Law, University of Kashmir, where 12 contractual lecturers were engaged, yet only three permanent posts were advertised. Petitioners argued this showed continued need for faculty and challenged the use of guest/visiting lecturers as a replacement mechanism. They relied on the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008, particularly Rule 17, which mandates the presence of a core full-time faculty for accredited law programs.
The university submitted that visiting faculty from other departments and institutions fulfilled the teaching requirement. However, the Court noted that only 13 of 18 sanctioned posts in the Law Department were filled, and that the student intake was significant across various programs including BA. LL.B., LLB, LLM, and PhD.
The Court recorded that "the Supreme Court has consistently held that ad hoc or temporary employees should not be replaced by another set of ad hoc or temporary employees". In Rattan Lal vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 43, the apex court held that such a practice was "arbitrary and exploitative" and violated Articles 14 and 16.
The Court referred to State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118, wherein the Supreme Court stated: "An ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee".
In Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 292, it was observed: "Though the appellants may not be entitled to regular appointment, they should be continued till regular incumbents are appointed".
The Court held that "the consistent legal view is that ad hoc employees must not be subjected to repeated terminations and fresh engagements". It quoted Mohd. Abdul Kadir vs. Director General of Police, Assam, (2009) 6 SCC 611: "They will not be entitled to regularization, but as long as the scheme continues, the practice of annual re-engagement should be avoided".
Referring to Manish Gupta, the Court stated: "It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure".
Addressing the contention that Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 overruled Piara Singh, the Court held: "The direction in Piara Singh that ad hoc or temporary employees should only be replaced by regularly selected employees was not disagreed with in Uma Devi".
On the argument that new advertisements are necessary to bring in fresh talent, the Court noted: "Replacing teaching faculty after every academic session breaks continuity which is ultimately detrimental to the academic career of the students".
Regarding the Law Department, the Court said: "In the face of the standards prescribed by the Bar Council of India, it is well neigh impossible for the respondent University to cater to the needs of student community with a teaching faculty of 13 people".
The Court recorded that "the action of the respondents in disengaging the services of the petitioners and replacing them by ad hoc arrangements like visiting lecturers and guest lecturers is nothing but a malafide exercise of power".
It concluded: "Dispensing with the engagement of the petitioners and replacing them with visiting/guest lecturers would amount to perpetuating ad hocism and indirectly doing an act which is impermissible in law".
The Court disposed of the writ petitions with the direction that "the respondents shall not replace the petitioners with a similar arrangement till such time regular selection to the posts, which the petitioners are holding, is made in accordance with the relevant Recruitment Rules".
The Court further directed: "The respondents shall, however, be at liberty to dispense with the services of the petitioners on the ground of non-performance or on disciplinary grounds".
In WP(C) No.283/2023, the Court ordered: "The writ petition is transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar, for its disposal in accordance with law. Till such time the matter is considered by the Tribunal, the interim order shall remain in operation".
In matters where additional legal issues were raised (e.g., criteria of qualification), the Court directed: "The same are directed to be delinked for their separate consideration. It is, however, provided that the interim orders passed in the writ petitions shall continue".
With respect to the School of Law, the Court allowed the petitions, stating: "The respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to continue as contractual Lecturers in the Department of Law till such time the respondents create and put in place a core faculty for imparting education".
The Court closed related contempt petitions, holding: "Since the main writ petition(s) stand already disposed of, the interim orders have merged with the final order. The contempt proceedings, therefore, do not survive and are disposed of accordingly".
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. G.A. Lone, Advocate; Mr. Mujeeb Andrabi, Advocate; Mr. Sheikh Mushtaq, Advocate; Mr. Owais Shafi, Advocate; Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Ganai, Advocate; Mr. Arif Sikandar, Advocate with Ms. Asifa Padder & Ms. Laraib Anjeelena, Advocates; Mr. S.M. Saleem, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Syed Faisal Qadiri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Khursheed Dar, Advocate; Mr. Asif Maqbool, Advocate; Mr. Mansoor Bukhari, Advocate; Ms. Mariya, Advocate.
Case Title: Mushtaq Ahmad Shah & Ors. vs. University of Kashmir & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 708/2023 and connected matters
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
