Willing contractual employees cannot be replaced by another contractual set until regular appointments are made.

The 45 applicants were engaged in various trades under the respondent Department and approached the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

They challenged the advertisement dated 7/8 September 2026 and sought continuation in service without a further interview, protection against replacement by another set of contractual employees, and treatment on the same terms as the applicants in Ms. Kavita & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., O.A. No. 2302/2019, Nisha v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., O.A. No. 1339/2020, and Sachin Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., O.A. No. 3288/2023.

The applicants also filed M.A. No. 4583/2026 seeking permission to prosecute the proceedings jointly on the ground that they were similarly situated and sought identical reliefs.

The respondents stated that they did not intend to replace the applicants with another set of contractual employees and had instead sought their willingness to continue as Part-Time Instructors.

The respondents further accepted that the applicants were identically placed with the applicants in the three earlier OAs.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to the same treatment as the applicants in the three earlier OAs concerning their continuation as contractual/Part-Time Instructors.

2. Whether the respondents could replace the applicants with another set of contractual employees, notwithstanding their willingness to continue, before regularly appointed persons became available.

3. Whether the applicants’ joint application was maintainable where they were identically placed and sought common reliefs.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which an aggrieved person may approach the Tribunal for redressal of service-related grievances.

It applied the procedural principle that similarly situated applicants seeking identical reliefs on common grounds may be permitted to prosecute proceedings jointly, particularly where the respondents raise no objection.

Substantively, the Tribunal followed the principle of parity and consistency by directing that identically placed employees receive the same treatment as parties in the earlier connected or comparable proceedings.

It also applied the established service-law principle that contractual employees who are willing to continue should not be replaced by another set of contractual employees, although their engagement may be brought to an end upon replacement by regularly appointed personnel.

The Tribunal allowed the joint proceedings because all 45 applicants were accepted to be identically placed and sought common reliefs, and the respondents had no objection.

The respondents’ statement that they did not intend to substitute the applicants with another set of contractual employees substantially addressed the applicants’ principal grievance.

Since the respondents also accepted that the applicants were similarly situated to the parties in the three earlier OAs, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to extend the same treatment to them, subject to the final adjudication in those matters.

On that basis, and with the consent of both sides, the Tribunal protected the applicants from replacement by another set of contractual employees so long as they remained willing to continue or until regularly appointed persons were available.

The OA was disposed of by directing the respondents to accord the applicants the same treatment as the applicants in the three earlier OAs, in accordance with the final adjudication in those matters.

The respondents were further directed not to replace the applicants with another set of contractual employees while the applicants remained willing to continue, or until they were required to be replaced by regularly appointed persons.

The OA and MA were accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.