Contractual employees cannot be substituted by other temporary or ad-hoc arrangements until regular selections are made.

The four applicants were engaged as Guest Faculty in various trades (Sewing Technology, Mechanic Motor Vehicle, Mechanic Tractor, and Fitter) at the Industrial Training Institute (ITI), Samba

They filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a direction to the respondents to allow them to continue in their respective positions and to refrain from replacing them with other temporary or contractual appointees until regular selections are made

They also sought the release of unpaid salary dues for services rendered

During the hearing, the applicants restricted their plea to seeking protection against substitution by other ad-hoc arrangements

1. Whether the respondents can replace the services of the applicants, who are temporary/guest faculty, with another set of temporary, ad-hoc, or contractual employees before a regular selection is conducted.

The court relied on the established legal principle that one temporary or ad-hoc employee cannot be replaced by another temporary or ad-hoc employee; they can only be replaced by a candidate selected through a regular recruitment process

This principle was derived from the landmark judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors. (1992), State of Himachal Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar Verma & Anr. (1996), and Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti (2019)

The Tribunal observed that the applicants were currently serving as Guest Faculty and sought protection based on settled law regarding the security of tenure against arbitrary replacement

The court found that keeping the Original Application pending was unnecessary as the legal position regarding the substitution of ad-hoc staff is well-defined by the Supreme Court

While the Tribunal did not delve into the specific merits of the applicants' initial appointments, it determined that the interests of justice would be served by ensuring the respondents follow the rule that temporary staff should only make way for regular appointees, thereby maintaining administrative consistency and preventing "back-door" replacements by similar temporary arrangements

It directed the respondents not to substitute the services of the applicants with other contractual or temporary arrangements. However, the court explicitly clarified that the respondents remain at liberty to conduct and finalize a regular selection process for the posts in accordance with the law

Furthermore, the Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No. 705/2026) for joining the petition collectively was allowed