Contractual employees willing to continue cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees.

The nine applicants were working as contractual/part-time instructors in various trades at different Industrial Training Institutes under the Department of Training and Technical Education, Government of NCT of Delhi.

They challenged the advertisement dated 7/8 September 2026 and sought continuation in service without undergoing another interview, protection against replacement by another set of contractual employees, and continuation until regular appointments were made.

They also sought directions permitting them to submit their willingness to continue as part-time instructors, relying upon orders passed in similarly placed matters, including O.A. No. 3572/2026.

The applicants filed the O.A. jointly on the ground that they were similarly situated and sought identical reliefs; this was the subject of M.A. No. 4763/2026.

The respondents accepted notice and stated that the present matter was identical to O.A. No. 3572/2026, which had been disposed of by consent on 21 September 2026.

Whether the applicants were entitled to the same treatment and directions as those granted in O.A. No. 3572/2026 and the connected similarly placed matters.

Whether the respondents could replace the applicants with another set of contractual employees while the applicants remained willing to continue, or before regularly appointed persons became available.

Whether the applicants’ joint filing of the O.A. should be permitted on the ground that they were similarly placed and sought identical reliefs.

The Tribunal applied the principle of parity and consistency in judicial relief for similarly situated contractual employees.

It relied upon the consent-based directions previously issued in O.A. No. 3572/2026 and M.A. No. 4583/2026, under which applicants were to receive the same treatment as parties in earlier analogous proceedings and were not to be replaced by another set of contractual employees so long as they were willing to continue or until replacement by regularly appointed persons.

The Tribunal also accepted the procedural basis for joint adjudication where applicants were similarly placed and sought identical reliefs.

The applicants asserted that their circumstances and reliefs were identical to those considered in O.A. No. 3572/2026.

The respondents, through counsel and under instructions, expressly accepted that the present applicants were identically placed and agreed that the same directions could be issued.

Since the earlier order protected similarly situated contractual instructors from replacement by another set of contractual employees, subject to their willingness to continue and the availability of regularly appointed personnel, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to extend the same treatment to the present applicants.

The Tribunal therefore resolved the matter on the basis of the parties’ consent and the principle of consistent treatment in comparable cases.

The applicants were directed to be accorded the same treatment as the applicants in the earlier analogous proceedings.

The respondents were restrained from replacing them with another set of contractual employees so long as the applicants remained willing to continue, or until they were required to be replaced by regularly appointed persons.

The matters were disposed of without any order as to costs.