Safiya Malik

The Gauhati High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking the regularization of Guest/Part-Time Faculty members appointed in 11 newly established polytechnics across Assam. The petitioners, who were initially recruited on a contractual basis, argued that their appointments should be treated as regular appointments, given their long-term service and the nature of their selection process. However, the court upheld the decision of the single judge bench, which rejected their claim for regularization, citing procedural non-compliance and the existence of a valid recruitment process for permanent positions.

The case originated from a decision by the Assam Government to establish 11 new polytechnic institutions. To facilitate the commencement of academic activities in these newly established institutions, the Directorate of Technical Education, Assam, issued an advertisement on December 24, 2016, inviting applications from qualified candidates for the position of Guest/Part-Time Faculty. The recruitment was explicitly stated to be temporary and contractual, and the appointment letters issued to selected candidates reinforced this condition, specifying that the engagement would not confer any right to regularization.

Subsequently, the government granted approval for these temporary appointments through a communication dated February 13, 2017. This approval was subject to the condition that the engagement would be temporary until the recruitment of regular faculty was completed through a proper selection process.

On May 25, 2017, the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) issued an advertisement inviting applications for 113 technical and 86 non-technical lecturer positions in various polytechnics, including the newly established institutions. The petitioners, who had already been serving in these institutions as Guest/Part-Time Faculty, contended that the advertised posts were the same as those they were occupying and argued that they should be given preference in the regular recruitment process or be directly absorbed as regular faculty members.

The petitioners based their claim on the argument that their educational qualifications met the prescribed eligibility norms and that their selection had been conducted through a process that was substantially similar to a regular recruitment procedure. They further submitted that they had been performing duties identical to those of permanent lecturers and had been involved in core academic functions such as preparing lecture notes, conducting examinations, and mentoring students. They also argued that their contractual nature of employment was contrary to the requirements of the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), which mandates that faculty recruitment in technical institutions be conducted on a permanent basis, except in exceptional circumstances.

The division bench, consisting of the Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair, examined the claims presented by the petitioners in light of existing judicial precedents and statutory provisions. The court observed that:

"The appointment letters clearly stipulated that the engagement was purely temporary and subject to termination without prior notice. Moreover, the government’s communication on February 13, 2017, reiterated that these appointments would remain contractual until a regular recruitment process was conducted."

The court also addressed the petitioners’ argument that their educational certificates had been retained by the authorities, which allegedly prevented them from applying for the May 25, 2017, advertisement. On this point, the court stated:

"The submission of certificates was only for verification purposes, and there is no material to establish that the petitioners were barred from participating in the recruitment process."

The court further noted that a challenge to the APSC advertisement had already been adjudicated in a separate writ petition, WP(C) 2089/2020. In that case, the single judge had struck down the advertisement in so far as it pertained to the recruitment of faculty for the new polytechnics and directed the government to conduct a fresh recruitment process in accordance with the Assam Technical Education Service Rules, 1981.

Pursuant to that decision, the Assam Government issued a fresh recruitment advertisement on December 30, 2024. The court observed that since a lawful recruitment process was currently ongoing, the petitioners could not claim any right to absorption.

"The fresh recruitment process initiated through the Assam Engineering Service Recruitment Board ensures compliance with statutory provisions. Allowing the petitioners’ absorption would be contrary to settled legal principles governing contractual employment."

The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, which held that irregular appointments cannot be regularized unless an individual has completed ten years of service without the benefit of a formal selection process. The court observed that the petitioners’ continued employment had been protected under interim judicial orders and that they had not completed ten years of service in the manner prescribed in Uma Devi.

Based on these findings, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the single judge’s ruling and holding:

"The claim for regularization is unsustainable in law. The appellants’ engagement was never intended to be permanent, and their continued employment was subject to the pending recruitment process."

Case Title: Dr. Netramoni Baruah and Ors v. The State of Assam and Ors

Case Number: WA/49/2025

Bench: Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair

[Read/Download order]