Back
Supreme Court Strikes Down Arbitrary Contractual Hiring in Regular Faculty Slots
In a significant ruling on equal opportunity in public employment, the has declared it "" to offer a contractual appointment to a candidate shortlisted and selected through a process meant exclusively for regular positions, without recording any reasons for such differential treatment. A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti allowed the appeal of Lokendra Kumar Tiwari , directing the to grant him a regular appointment as Assistant Professor with continuity of service—but no financial benefits for the gap period.
The judgment, delivered on (), underscores the constitutional imperative of uniformity in selection processes under (equality) and (equal opportunity in public employment).
A Promising Start Turns Sour: The 2013 Recruitment Saga
The dispute traces back to , when IIIT-Allahabad issued Advertisement FS-01/2013 inviting applications for regular posts of Professors, Associate Professors, and Assistant Professors in Pay Band-III and IV. No mention was made of contractual roles. Tiwari, armed with a Ph.D. in Information Security from the University of Allahabad, an M.S. in Cyber Law & Information Security from IIIT-Allahabad (CGPA 9.02/10, Bronze Medal), and over three years of teaching experience, applied for Assistant Professor in the Information Security stream.
He cleared the interview on , alongside 13 others. Yet, while most received regular appointments per the Selection Committee's recommendation, Tiwari and Dr. Ranjana Vyas were singled out for 12-month contracts at a fixed ₹40,000/month . No reasons were noted for this anomaly.
Appointments were cancelled in over procedural lapses, sparking litigation. The ordered reconsideration in ; post a Supreme Court remand, IIIT reissued contracts to Tiwari while regularizing others. His fresh writ challenge failed before a Single Judge () and Division Bench, citing his acceptance without written protest and .
Appellant's Plea: "Economic Compulsion, Not Consent"
Tiwari, represented by Senior Advocate Sudhir Kumar Saxena , argued the ad targeted sanctioned regular posts . IIIT's 1999 Recruitment Rules mandated distinct Selection Committees for regular vs. contractual hires—a procedure flouted here. Fully qualified and selected via the regular process, his arbitrary contractual downgrade violated and . Oral protests at joining, followed by acceptance under duress and the then-Director’s assurances, didn’t waive illegality. He sought regularization from , 2013, with all benefits.
Institute's Defense: Discretion and Delay Bar Relief
IIIT-Allahabad, via Advocate Sanyat Lodha , countered that the Committee held discretion to recommend regular or contractual terms based on merit and posts. Tiwari accepted without demur, worked nearly a year, and reaffirmed via a 2014 letter— applied. Post-remand reconsideration by the Board of Governors () was reasoned and beyond . With 67 Assistant Professor vacancies (32 immediate), no regularization right existed for a non-serving contractee.
Court's Razor-Sharp Scrutiny: No Reasons, No Refuge
The apex court reframed the core issue: not regularization of contracts, but the validity of issuing contracts against a regular-only advertisement . Admitted facts painted arbitrariness—no contractual caveat in the ad, uniform process for all, yet unexplained differential treatment.
“The procedure initiated is for a regular appointment, and the Selection Committee... has not given equal or uniform treatment to all candidates invited for an interview.”
doesn't re-appraise merit, but unchecked singularity demands justification:
“To justify a singular treatment, at least the record must disclose reasons. The record does not disclose any reason for denying the post for which the Appellant was shortlisted and interviewed.”
Vacancies abound, yet denial persisted without "just and real reason." Reports from LiveLaw and other outlets echoed this, noting the bench's dismay at the institute's tabular data revealing no relaxations or demerits for Tiwari.
Pivotal Quotes That Seal the Verdict
Key Observations from the Bench:
-
"However, we note that denying a regular appointment is ."
-
"The Appellant, if unsuitable for appointment, could not have been recommended even on a contract basis for a period of twelve months."
-
"In the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the Appellant is entitled to a Regular Appointment in Respondent No. 2/Institution as Assistant Professor."
-
"We mould the relief by denying other benefits except the Appellant’s entitlement to continuity of service without financial benefit."
Relief with Restraint: Regular Job, Ranked Last
All impugned High Court orders were set aside. IIIT-Allahabad must issue Tiwari's regular appointment order within four weeks , placing him last in seniority among the 2013 selectees from , 2013. Continuity of service granted, but no backwages—balancing equity amid prolonged litigation.
This precedent fortifies safeguards against post-selection discrimination in public hiring, compelling reasoned uniformity. Educational institutes must now tread carefully: merit via regular process demands regular fruit, or face constitutional rebuke.
