Contractual employees cannot be replaced by freshers or juniors if the requirement for work persists.

The applicants are contractual employees who were appointed by the respondents (India Meteorological Department and Indian Council of Agricultural Research) through a formal selection process

Their contractual terms are scheduled to expire on March 31, 2026

On January 15, 2026, the respondents issued a fresh employment notice for walk-in interviews to fill similar posts with new candidates

The applicants filed the present Original Applications (OAs) seeking interim protection against disengagement and replacement by freshers

The respondents contended that funding for these positions was only authorized until March 31, 2026

Conflicting precedents were cited: the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) granted protection to similarly placed persons in Writ Petition No. 2268/2024 [para. 4], while the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) recently declined such relief

1. Whether contractual employees selected through a formal process can be replaced by another set of contractual employees (freshers/juniors) for the same roles.

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to preference in continuation or re-engagement based on their prior service, suitability, and willingness.

The Tribunal relied on the general principle of service jurisprudence that contractual employees should not be replaced by another set of contractual employees if the work requirement persists

It specifically considered the judicial approach of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2268/2024, which extended interim protection to keep similarly situated employees in service

The Tribunal noted the undisputed fact that the applicants were already working on a contract basis and that the respondents intended to continue the work by advertising for the same positions

It observed that replacing experienced contractual staff—who were already selected via a process—with "freshers" or "outsiders" was improper if the necessity for the posts remained

Addressing the conflicting High Court orders, the Tribunal noted that the protective order from the Bombay High Court was still in force

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the most equitable approach was to allow the respondents to manage their staffing needs while ensuring that the current applicants are not arbitrarily replaced by juniors or less experienced newcomers, provided the applicants remain suitable and willing to work

If similarly placed persons are continued in employment, the respondents must consider continuing the applicants’ engagement, subject to their willingness and suitability

Applicants who have already been disengaged must be given preference for re-filling those posts, subject to suitability and willingness

The OAs and associated Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were disposed of with no order as to costs