Resource persons are not equivalent to Assistant Professors and cannot claim similar benefits.

The six applicants, qualified teachers, were engaged as "resource persons" by Post Graduate Govt. College for Girls, Sector-42, Chandigarh (Respondent No. 4) and Post Graduate Govt. College, Sector-11, Chandigarh (Respondent No. 5) through a public selection process to teach various subjects, primarily Botany and Punjabi.

Their appointments began between 2015 and 2018 and continued till the 2018-19 academic session based on satisfactory performance, with assigned workloads ranging from 12 to 18 lectures per week.

The applicants claimed they performed duties identical to regular and contractual Assistant Professors, including teaching, evaluating students, and participating in faculty development programs.

They argued that the respondents changed the nomenclature from "contract teachers" to "guest faculty" and then to "resource persons" to avoid complying with judicial directions protecting ad hoc and contractual teachers from arbitrary replacement.

Despite the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2010, recognizing only Professors, Associate Professors, and Assistant Professors, and stipulating that contractual teachers' salaries should not be less than regularly appointed Assistant Professors, the applicants were paid only ₹25,000 per month for 7-8 months a year and denied salaries during vacations through "artificial breaks" in service.

The respondents maintained that the applicants were engaged purely as "resource persons" on a need-based, lecture-based arrangement, paid honorarium from student fees, and not salaries.

They asserted that the resource persons' roles, selection process, and duties differed significantly from contractual or regular teachers, lacking administrative responsibilities and eligibility for vacation pay.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to allow the applicants to continue working on a contract basis until regular posts are filled, in accordance with the law.

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to salary for notional break periods, summer/winter vacations, and preparatory/examination holidays as per Clause 13 of the UGC Regulations.

3. Whether the applicants should be declared Assistant Professors serving on a contractual basis, and whether the respondents' action of treating them as resource persons is illegal and arbitrary, warranting issuance of appointment letters.

4. Whether the creation of a pool of resource persons for substantive teaching work by the respondents violates Clause 13 of the UGC Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff.

5. Whether a "resource person" is a distinct class from an Assistant Professor, and if the respondents lack jurisdiction to treat a resource person as equivalent to an Assistant Professor.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles derived from its previous judgment in O.A No. 411/2017, Sukhwinder Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and connected matters.

This precedent established that individuals engaged explicitly as "Resource Persons" under a specific policy framework, whose selection process, nature of duties, responsibilities, and source/mode of payment differ materially from Contractual/Regular Assistant Professors, cannot be granted the reliefs typically afforded to contractual/regular teachers.

The previous judgment also noted that the payment of "fees for professional services" under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act (as evidenced by Form 16A), rather than salary, supports the distinction between resource persons and employees.

The Tribunal found that the applicants in the current case were "similarly situated persons" to those in the previously decided O.A No. 411/2017.

In that prior case, the Tribunal had already determined that resource persons were engaged under a specific policy framework, and their selection, duties, responsibilities, and payment methods were "materially different" from those of Contractual/Regular Assistant Professors.

The court's previous analysis highlighted that the relied-upon Annexure A-13 (Form 16A) indicated payment as "fees for professional services" under the IT Act, not salary, further distinguishing their engagement from an employment relationship.

The current Tribunal concluded that, based on the established legal position from the connected matters, the essential characteristics of the applicants' engagement did not align with those of Assistant Professors, whether regular or contractual.

Thus, the legal framework applied in the precedent directly governed the present case, precluding the granting of the requested reliefs.

The reliefs sought by the applicants, including continuation on a contract basis, salary for vacation periods, or declaration as contractual Assistant Professors, could not be granted.

The Tribunal upheld the distinction between "resource persons" and "Assistant Professors" based on the varying nature of their engagement, duties, and compensation.