Guest Faculty cannot be replaced by similar arrangements except through regular appointment processes

The five applicants were engaged as Guest Faculty in various trades (Draftsman Civil, Stenographer, Electrician, Wood Work Technician, and Driver-cum-Mechanic) at Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) in Anantnag and Baramulla.

Their engagements followed formal advertisement notifications issued in August and November 2025.

Despite possessing requisite qualifications and the ongoing operational need for their trades, the applicants alleged that the respondents threatened to discontinue their services without lawful reason.

They approached the Tribunal fearing replacement by another set of temporary or contractual employees.

1. Whether an adhoc or guest faculty employee can be replaced by another employee appointed on a similar adhoc or temporary basis.

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to continue in their positions until regular appointments are made.

The Tribunal applied the settled legal principle that one temporary substitute cannot be replaced by another temporary substitute, relying on Rattan Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (1987) and State of Haryana v. Piara Singh & Ors. (1992).

Established that replacing one similar arrangement with another is inappropriate, especially when the current incumbents have gained experience beneficial to the institution, citing Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2007).

Reference to the J&K High Court decision in Mushtaq Ahmad Shah v. University of Kashmir (2025).

The Tribunal examined the nature of the applicants' recruitment, noting they were engaged through a "duly notified selection process" pursuant to formal advertisements.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicants do not have an inherent right to permanent regularization based solely on guest faculty status, the law prohibits the arbitrary "replacement of one similar arrangement by another similar arrangement".

The Court found that for the purposes of institutional efficiency and legal fairness, the current experienced faculty should remain in place rather than being replaced by fresh adhoc appointees, as guest faculty should only be displaced by candidates appointed through a regular, due process of selection.

The Court held that the applicants' current arrangement shall not be replaced by a similar adhoc/temporary arrangement and they shall be allowed to continue in service until regular appointments are made in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal clarified it expressed no opinion on the ultimate merits of regularization.