SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has restrained the University of Kashmir from replacing its existing contractual teaching staff with fresh hires on similar contractual or academic arrangement terms. The court ruled that such appointments can only be terminated and replaced by regularly selected candidates through a due recruitment process, and not by bringing in a new set of ad hoc employees. The decision is expected to have wide implications for how universities and colleges in the region engage temporary faculty.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar while disposing of more than two dozen writ petitions clubbed under the lead case Dr Saba Manzoor Ganai and others vs. University of Kashmir. The petitioners, many of whom had been teaching in the university on an academic arrangement or contractual basis for years, challenged the university’s repeated practice of advertising fresh positions in their respective departments at the end of each academic session, despite their ongoing service and experience.
Justice Dhar observed that it is a settled legal position, affirmed in multiple Supreme Court and High Court rulings, that an ad hoc or contractual employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc or contractual appointee. Instead, such faculty can only be replaced by a regularly selected candidate through the proper recruitment process. Citing key judgments including Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana (1985), State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (1992), and Manish Gupta v. President Jan Bhagidari Samiti (2022), the court found that the University of Kashmir’s hiring policy violated constitutional principles of fairness and employment security.
The university’s argument, that these hires were purely temporary and the advertisements for new appointments were aimed at attracting fresh and more talented candidates, was strongly rejected by the court. Justice Dhar noted that “replacing teaching faculty after every academic session breaks continuity, which is ultimately detrimental to the academic career of students.” He emphasised that experienced faculty who have built rapport with students and mastered course content should not be replaced arbitrarily at the end of each session under the garb of ‘fresh talent.’
The court took particular note of the situation in the Department of Law, where 12 contractual positions were advertised in 2023 but only three were subsequently offered through regular recruitment. The University claimed it had filled the rest of the teaching needs through guest and visiting faculty from other departments or universities. The court called this practice problematic and contrary to the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, issued by the Bar Council of India. These rules mandate a certain number of full-time faculty members for legal education programs, depending on the number of courses and student intake.
The court also addressed the University’s claim that some petitioners were holding only “positions” and not sanctioned “posts,” and therefore could not demand continuity. While acknowledging the distinction between sanctioned posts and temporary positions, the court pointed out that the University itself had advertised multiple positions year after year, proving there was a consistent need for faculty that could no longer be brushed aside as casual or seasonal.
The High Court directed the University not to replace any of the petitioners with another set of contractual or academic arrangement appointees. If the University does not have a requirement for certain subjects, it is free to discontinue engagements, but it must not replace one temporary teacher with another. The only exception allowed is in cases of non-performance or disciplinary issues. The court further directed that the contractual lecturers in the Department of Law must continue until a proper core faculty is created and put in place as per statutory requirements.
The court also transferred some petitions that involved claims for regularization to the Central Administrative Tribunal, noting that such matters fall under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. In a few other cases where petitioners had raised concerns over qualifications and eligibility criteria in advertisements, the court said those issues would be heard separately.
