J&K HC Orders Guest Software-Testing Instructor To Continue While Need Exists And Performance Is Satisfactory, Not Be Replaced By Another Temporary Hire

In brief

The question

Whether a temporary or ad hoc employee may be replaced by another employee engaged on a similar temporary basis, rather than through regular recruitment.

The court held

The petition was allowed.

It also directed

The respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to continue as Software Testing Assistant, with existing benefits under the rules, for as long as the requirement existed and subject to satisfactory conduct and performance; they were restrained from replacing him through a similar ad hoc or contractual arrangement.

The respondents could fill the post through regular selection, and the judgment conferred no automatic right to regularization.

01Facts

The petitioner was selected, following an advertisement, as a Guest Faculty member and Software Testing Assistant for the 2022–2023 academic session, on consolidated remuneration of ₹20,000 per month.

pp. 1–3

He claimed that he continued to work and that the respondents proposed to replace him with another temporary appointee without conducting regular recruitment.

pp. 1–3

The respondents maintained that his engagement was session-based, conferred no right to continuation, and had ended due to unsatisfactory performance.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8

The Court noted counsel’s statement that the petitioner continued to work, supported by the attendance and monthly status records.

p. 7 · ¶ 20

02Issues

i.Whether a temporary or ad hoc employee may be replaced by another employee engaged on a similar temporary basis, rather than through regular recruitment.

p. 1 · ¶ 1 · pp. 4–5 · ¶ 11–13

ii.Whether the petitioner was entitled to continue as Guest Faculty while the institutional requirement persisted, subject to satisfactory conduct and performance.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3 · p. 7 · ¶ 20–21

03Law Applied

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution require fairness and non-arbitrariness in public employment; the absence of a fundamental right to appointment does not permit arbitrary State action.

p. 4 · ¶ 11

Under Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 43, and State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be displaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 14–16

Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 292, supports continuation of temporary employees until regular incumbents are appointed, without conferring a right to regular appointment.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 14–16

Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 485, reaffirmed that a temporary employee may be replaced by a regularly selected candidate, not by another temporary appointee.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 17–19

04Reasoning

The Court treated the petitioner’s engagement as temporary but found that the claimed ongoing work was supported by attendance records and counsel’s statement.

p. 7 · ¶ 20

Applying the Supreme Court authorities, it held that replacing him with another temporary appointee, while the need for the work continued, would be inconsistent with the requirement of non-arbitrary public employment under Articles 14 and 16.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 17–21

The respondents remained free to fill the post through a formal, regular selection process, and continuation was made conditional on the continuing requirement and the petitioner’s satisfactory conduct and performance.

p. 8 · ¶ 21–23