Contractual employees cannot be replaced by other similarly engaged employees for the same work.

The applicant, Dr. Razak Hussain, along with two other candidates, was engaged as an Assistant Professor/Teaching Assistant on a contractual basis for the Academic Session 2024-25.

The respondents thereafter issued a notification dated July 22, 2025, for the engagement of Temporary Assistant Professors/Teaching Assistants for the Academic Session 2025-26.

Aggrieved, similarly situated persons, including the applicant, filed O.A. No. 1593/2025, which was disposed of by the Tribunal on October 13, 2025, directing the respondents not to replace the applicants or terminate their services with any other person engaged on similar terms (i.e., contractual or need basis).

In compliance with this order, the respondents issued a memo for contractual engagement on an academic arrangement basis on November 26, 2025, and other similarly placed persons joined and continued their services.

However, the applicant was not allowed to re-join by the respondents despite his requests.

Whether the respondents can dispense with or disengage the services of the applicant while the posts are not filled in accordance with rules on a substantive basis through a proper recruitment process?

Whether the respondents can substitute the services of the applicant, held temporarily, with another similar arrangement?

Whether the respondents can make a requisition for filling up the posts held by the applicant on a similar arrangement at the cost of the applicant's rights and interests?

The Tribunal applied the principle established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors. (1992 (4) SCC 118)*, *State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Suresh Kumar Verma & Anr. (1996 (7) SCC 562)*, and *Manish Gupta vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti (SLP (C) No. 12946 of 2017)*, which holds that one set of contract employees cannot be replaced with another set of employees engaged on the very same terms.

The Tribunal also considered its own previous order dated October 13, 2025, in O.A. No. 1593 of 2025, which directed against replacing or terminating services of similarly situated persons with others on similar contractual terms.

The court's analysis centered on the established legal principle against replacing contractual employees with another set of similarly placed contractual employees.

Despite the Tribunal's previous order dated October 13, 2025, which prevented the replacement of contractual employees like the applicant, the applicant was not allowed to re-join while others similarly situated were.

The applicant's counsel relied on Supreme Court judgments reaffirming this principle, arguing that the respondents' action of not allowing the applicant to continue or by potentially replacing him with another contractual arrangement violated these precedents and the Tribunal's previous directive.

The Tribunal, acknowledging these submissions and the prior order, concluded that the applicant should not be replaced by another person on similar contractual or need-based terms, provided there was sufficient workload.

The respondents were directed to allow the applicant to continue discharging his duties until the post is duly filled through a regular mode of selection.

The Original Application was disposed of accordingly.