Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Sanjeev Kumar, Sanjay Parihar, JJ
University of Kashmir – Appellant
Versus
Saba Manzoor – Respondent
LPA 169/2025 | LPA 187/2025 | LPA 188/2025 | LPA 189/2025 | LPA 190/2025 | LPA 191/2025 | LPA 192/2025 | LPA 213/2025 | LPA 214/2025 | LPA 215/2025 | LPA 216/2025 | LPA 217/2025 | LPA 218/2025 | LPA 219/2025
For the Appellants:Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Asif Maqbool, Mr. Sikander Hayat Khan, Mr. Numan Zargar
For the Respondents:Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Omais Kawoosa, Mr. Owais Shafi, Mr. Arif Sikander Mir, Mr. Sheikh Mushtaq
Replacing ad hoc or contractual employees with others of similar status is impermissible and violates constitutional principles of fairness.
Headnote:(A) Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - Replacement of ad hoc or contractual appointments - The practice of replacing ad hoc teachers is impermissible as it violates fairness principles embedded in the Constitution. The court ruled that temporary or contractual employees cannot be replaced by others of similar status but only by regularly selected candidates. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
Appellants engaged respondents on a temporary basis for academic sessions, later sought to replace them despite ongoing contracts, leading respondents to challenge this and assert rights to continuation pending regular selections.
Findings of Court:
A contractual employee cannot be replaced by another of the same status; the decision to maintain current arrangements pending regular recruitment was upheld.
Issues: Whether a person engaged on academic arrangement or contractual basis can be replaced by another person engaged on the same basis, pending regular selection to the post.
Ratio Decidendi: Established that the practice of periodically replacing contractual appointments undermines institutional stability and violates employees' rights, as adjudicated by the Supreme Court in prior rulings. This principle remains affirmed and binding.
Result: The judgment was modified to allow for conditions regarding temporary or academic arrangements pending regular selections.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. status of contractual employment and effects of termination. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court observations on employee rights and legal precedents. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 , 14) |
| 3. legal arguments regarding replacement policies for temporary faculty. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. confirmed legal principles on replacements of ad hoc faculty. (Para 10 , 12 , 20) |
| 5. final directions on management of faculty arrangements. (Para 18 , 19 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Kumar, J
1. These intra-Court appeals, filed by the appellants–University authorities, are directed against a common order and judgment dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [“Writ Court”] in WP(C) Nos. 322/2023, 731/2022, 612/2025, 665/2023, 129/2023, 321/2023, 3132/2023, 126/2024, 527/2025, 376/2024, 706/2023, 708/2023, 543/2025, 362/2023 & 209/2021 whereby the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein have been allowed. The writ Court, while allowing the writ petitions, has directed that the writ petitioners, the respondents herein, engaged on academic arrangement basis shall be allowed to continue till such time regular selection is made to the posts held by them, and has further restrained the appellants from replacing them by another set of contractual or ad hoc employees.
2. Briefly put, the facts leading to the filing of instant appeals are that the respondents were engaged on academic arrangement/contractual basis by the appellant–University for various teaching positions. Their engagements, initially made for specific academic sessions, were extended from time to time either by virtue of interim orders passed by this Court or administrative extensions granted by the University itself. Upon expiry of academic sessions for which the respondents had been engaged, the appellants issued fresh advertisements inviting applications for the ensuing session, thereby seeking to discontinue the services of the existing contractual staff and replace them with newly engaged candidates on a similar academic arrangement basis. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached a Single Bench of this Court by filing separate writ petitions, contending therein that their discontinuance and replacement by another set of contractual appointees was arbitrary and impermissible in law.
3. The Writ Court has, after considering the rival submissions and examining the legal position settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that an ad hoc, temporary, or contractual employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc, temporary, or contractual employee, and that such replacement can only be made by a regularly selected candidate appointed in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules. Consequently, the writ Court has directed that the writ petitioners shall be permitted to continue till such time the regular appointments are made, and that the respondents shall not be replaced by a similar arrangement.
4. The present intra-court appeals are directed against the said common judgment passed in multiple petitions.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the respondents were engaged purely on academic arrangement basis for specific sessions, and, therefore, no vested right would accrue in their favour to seek continuation after the expiry of their contractual term. It is argued that each engagement was governed by express terms of the advertisement notice coupled with undertakings furnished by the respondents agreeing thereunder not to claim regularization or continuation beyond the academic session. It has been submitted that continuation of the existing contractual lecturers indefinitely would prejudice the right of fresh, talented, and qualified candidates to participate in the selection process and would also adversely affect the quality of education imparted to the students. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Raj Karan Singh (1998
