Kashmir Polytechnic Guest Lecturers To Continue While Needed, Subject To Good Conduct And Performance, As J&K HC Bars Ad Hoc Replacements

In brief

The question

Whether the respondents could replace the petitioners, engaged as guest lecturers, with other temporary or ad hoc appointees without following a regular recruitment process.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to continue the petitioners in their respective disciplines, with existing benefits under the rules, for as long as the requirement exists, subject to good conduct and satisfactory performance.

It also directed

The respondents were restrained from replacing them through a similar ad hoc or contractual arrangement, but could fill the posts through a formal regular selection process.

The judgment did not grant automatic regularization.

01Facts

The petitioners were selected through an advertised process and engaged as guest lecturers in Electronics and Communications and Medical Lab-Technology for the August–December 2024 academic session.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 2–5

Although no formal engagement orders were issued, they worked in their respective disciplines.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 2–5

They alleged that they were instructed to stop marking attendance from December 2024 and apprehended that they would be replaced by other temporary appointees.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 2–5

They sought continuation until regular recruitment and payment throughout the year.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 2–5

The respondents maintained that the engagements were temporary, session-specific arrangements that conferred no right to regularization or continued employment.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 6–10

02Issues

i.Whether the respondents could replace the petitioners, engaged as guest lecturers, with other temporary or ad hoc appointees without following a regular recruitment process.

p. 1 · ¶ 1 · pp. 4–5 · ¶ 13

ii.Whether the petitioners were entitled to continue in their engagements until regular appointments were made, without thereby acquiring a right to regularization.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 5 · pp. 7–8 · ¶ 21–23

03Law Applied

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution require fairness and non-arbitrariness in public employment.

p. 4 · ¶ 12

The Court applied the principle that an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; replacement should occur through regular appointment following the prescribed procedure.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 15–19

It relied on Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana, 1985 SCC (4) 43; State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992 4 SCC 118; Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 292; and Manish Gupta v. President Jan Bhagidari Samiti, 2022 SCC OnLine 485.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 15–19

The principle does not confer a right to regularization.

p. 8 · ¶ 23

04Reasoning

The petitioners’ engagements followed an advertised selection process, and the record showed that they had worked in their respective disciplines.

p. 4 · ¶ 13

Applying the cited authorities, the Court held that replacing them with another temporary arrangement would perpetuate arbitrary employment practices and offend Articles 14 and 16, particularly while the institutional requirement continued.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 16–20

The petitioners’ temporary status did not, however, entitle them to permanent absorption; the respondents remained free to fill the posts through regular recruitment.

p. 8 · ¶ 22–23

05Holding

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 21–24

The respondents were restrained from replacing them through a similar ad hoc or contractual arrangement, but could fill the posts through a formal regular selection process.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 21–24

The judgment did not grant automatic regularization.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 21–24

LawLens.Jammu and Kashmir High Court

Original Court PDF