Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Others (2022 SCC OnLine 485) - The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that ad hoc or guest employees cannot be replaced by other ad hoc or guest employees during the pendency of their employment, emphasizing that such arrangements are contractual and temporary. The Court clarified that replacements should follow a regular appointment procedure and that ongoing employment cannot be arbitrarily replaced ["KANNAN .P.A Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["Dr Harpreet Kaur vs University Of Jammu - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["KANNAN .P.A Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Legal Principle Against Substitution - The judgment explicitly states that a guest lecturer engaged on contractual basis ought not be replaced by another set of contractual employee/guest faculty and that the institution cannot be restrained from engaging additional guest lecturers, but replacements should adhere to lawful procedures ["KANNAN .P.A Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Protection of Guest Lecturers and Similar Appointments - Courts have granted protection to guest lecturers, holding that their rights are recognized and that they cannot be replaced without following due process. This is supported by decisions such as in Manju Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, where similarly placed guest lecturers were protected from arbitrary replacement ["ZABIULLA KASAMBI vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE - Karnataka"], ["PRABHA GOSAI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"].
Reliance on Past Supreme Court Decisions - The courts have consistently relied on precedents like Piara Singh (AIR 1992 SC 2130), Suresh Kumar Verma (1996), and others to affirm that contractual or guest employees have rights that cannot be ignored, especially regarding protection from replacement during ongoing employment ["KANNAN .P.A Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["Dr Harpreet Kaur vs University Of Jammu - Central Administrative Tribunal"].
Implication for Appointment Processes - The Supreme Court's ruling indicates that appointments under schemes like the Jan Bhagidari Scheme are contractual and temporary, but even so, replacements must follow lawful procedures, and arbitrary replacements are not permissible during the pendency of employment or scheme-related employment ["KANNAN .P.A Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The consistent legal stance from the Supreme Court and High Courts is that guest or ad hoc employees, including guest lecturers, have protected rights against arbitrary replacement, especially during ongoing employment or scheme implementation. The courts emphasize adherence to lawful appointment procedures and prohibit replacing such employees with other ad hoc or guest employees without following due process. This principle aims to prevent arbitrary employment practices and uphold the rights of temporary employees engaged under schemes like the Jan Bhagidari Scheme ["KANNAN .P.A Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["ZABIULLA KASAMBI vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE - Karnataka"], ["PRABHA GOSAI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"].
In the realm of employment law in India, few issues spark as much debate as the replacement of temporary or ad-hoc workers. The case of Manish Gupta and another v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others has become a cornerstone judgment, clarifying when and how such employees can be substituted. If you're an employer hiring contractual staff, a long-serving guest lecturer, or simply navigating labor disputes, understanding this ruling is crucial. This post breaks down the Supreme Court's decision, its key principles, and its broader implications.
The question at the heart of this discussion is straightforward yet profound: In Manish Gupta and another v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others, what did the Supreme Court rule regarding the replacement of ad-hoc or contractual employees? The main legal finding is clear—ad-hoc or contractual employees can only be replaced by regular employees appointed through due process. They cannot be swapped out for other ad-hoc or contractual workers without following specific legal procedures. Gummadadala Venkataramaiah VS State of Telangana - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 661
The Supreme Court emphasized: The Adhoc employee can be replaced only with a regular employee who is appointed following the due procedure prescribed and not by other adhoc employee. Gummadadala Venkataramaiah VS State of Telangana - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 661 This principle prevents arbitrary substitutions and promotes procedural fairness in public employment, particularly in schemes like guest faculty arrangements under Jan Bhagidari Samiti.
At its core, the judgment underscores that ad-hoc appointments are temporary bridges to regular recruitment, not a cycle of endless replacements. Courts have repeatedly reinforced this:- Ad-hoc employees can be replaced only with regular employees appointed via prescribed procedures. Gummadadala Venkataramaiah VS State of Telangana - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 661- Mere contractual or ad-hoc status does not allow indefinite substitution without legal compliance. Gummadadala Venkataramaiah VS State of Telangana - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 661
This aligns with broader precedents, such as Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab, which supports continuity for scheme-based workers until regular appointments. Hareram Mishra, Son of Bhavesh Kumar Mishra VS State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar - 2024 Supreme(Pat) 1107
Not all temporary roles are equal. The Court distinguished ad-hoc from purely contractual, co-terminus employment:- Ad-hoc: Often implies some procedural protection; replacement requires due process.- Contractual (co-terminus): Governed by contract terms, allowing replacement if terms are met, but still not arbitrarily. Gummadadala Venkataramaiah VS State of Telangana - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 661
For instance, in cases where contracts end with a project, replacements may proceed per terms, unlike ad-hoc roles. Gummadadala Venkataramaiah VS State of Telangana - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 661
The Manish Gupta ruling has rippled through numerous cases, especially involving guest lecturers and scheme workers.
Guest lecturers, often engaged contractually, frequently invoke this judgment. In one case, the court held that guest lecturers engaged on a contractual basis cannot be arbitrarily replaced; the principle of 'last came first go' must be followed until regular appointments are made. Hareram Mishra, Son of Bhavesh Kumar Mishra VS State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar - 2024 Supreme(Pat) 1107 Long-serving lecturers challenged new advertisements, securing continuation until regulars joined. Hareram Mishra, Son of Bhavesh Kumar Mishra VS State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar - 2024 Supreme(Pat) 1107
Similarly, courts have directed that existing guest faculty retain positions during recruitment processes: petitioners may participate in recruitment without hindrance; however, their current posts shall not be disturbed until the recruitment process is completed. Pramod S Jadhav, S/O. Satappa Jadhav vs State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Principal Secretary, Department School Education And Literacy (Higher Education) - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20933
Under schemes like the Integrated Child Protection Scheme, replacements were deemed impermissible: adhoc employees cannot be replaced by another adhoc employee and should be continued as long as the scheme continues, co-terminus with the scheme. Jayshree Vishwanath Bhale VS State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 1105 Petitioners were reinstated until scheme end or superannuation. Jayshree Vishwanath Bhale VS State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 1105
In data entry roles, a 12-year daily wager's termination—replaced by another contract worker—was ruled illegal: ad-hoc employees cannot be replaced by other ad-hoc employees. Baleshwar Prasad Verma, Son of Sri Manik Mahto VS State of Jharkhand - 2024 Supreme(Jhk) 802
High Courts in Chhattisgarh and elsewhere routinely cite Manish Gupta: He also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Gupta and another etc. vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others (2022) 6 SCALE 780. PRABHA GOSAI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARHDILIP KUMAR TAMRAKAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARHSWATI YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Another ruling stressed considering long-servers for regularization first: The court emphasized the need to consider long-serving guest teachers for regularisation before initiating fresh recruitment processes. RAGUKUMAR S/O SUBHAS DEVARAR vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20939
While the rule is firm, exceptions exist:- Co-terminus contracts: Termination/replacement permissible per explicit terms. Gummadadala Venkataramaiah VS State of Telangana - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 661- No parity with regulars: Guest faculty aren't ad-hoc and can't claim regular pay/rights. State of Madhya Pradesh VS Ramveeer Singh Gurjar - 2017 Supreme(MP) 194- Legitimate expectation: Repeated extensions create expectations, but stigmatic terminations violate natural justice. Sabyasachi Mohanty VS State of Orissa - 2022 Supreme(Ori) 89
Supported by precedents like Abdul Kadir v. Director General of Police: He can be replaced only by a candidate who is regularly appointed by following regular procedure prescribed. Jayshree Vishwanath Bhale VS State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 1105
To navigate these principles:- Employers: Document clear terms, adhere to procedures, prioritize regularization for long-servers, and avoid ad-hoc cycles. Kuldeep Kumar Malhotra VS Delhi Development Authority - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 3281- Employees: Highlight service length and cite Manish Gupta for protections against arbitrary replacement.- Future Disputes: Courts will scrutinize employment type and procedure compliance. Gummadadala Venkataramaiah VS State of Telangana - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 661
The Manish Gupta judgment promotes stability and fairness, curbing exploitation via temporary hires. Generally, ad-hoc workers enjoy protection against peer replacements, favoring regular recruitment. Contractual nuances apply, but procedural rigor is universal. This is general information based on public judgments—not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your situation.
Key Takeaways:- Replace ad-hoc only with regulars via due process. Gummadadala Venkataramaiah VS State of Telangana - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 661- Follow 'last in, first out' for guest roles. Hareram Mishra, Son of Bhavesh Kumar Mishra VS State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar - 2024 Supreme(Pat) 1107- Scheme workers continue co-terminus. Jayshree Vishwanath Bhale VS State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 1105
Stay informed on evolving labor law—Manish Gupta remains pivotal. Kuldeep Kumar Malhotra VS Delhi Development Authority - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 3281
#ManishGuptaCase #AdhocEmployees #LaborLawIndia
Before us, it is the contention of Smt.Vaheeda Babu, the learned counsel for the appellants that in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court dated 21.4.2022 in Manish Gupta & Another etc. v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Others etc. ... We note however from the said judgment that the employment of petitioners in those cases was under a Scheme known as the “Jan Bhagidari Scheme” notified by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, a....
II) Issue a writ of mandamus and declare that the action of the respondents in calling for fresh circular for the appointment of guest lecturers for the next ensuing year, as contrary to law declared in Manish Gupta and Another V/S President Jan Bhagidari Samithi ... and Others vide annexure-B.
Manish Gupta v. President Jan Bhagidari Samiti (2022 SCC OnLine 485) – reiterated principle against substitution by similar arrangement. Priyanka Gupta v. ... Piara Singh, 1992 AIR SC 2130; Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 485). The plea of concealment is misconceived as omission to disclose participation was inadvertent and later cured by filing MA No. 1206....
In this connection, he has placed reliance on decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti, reported in AIRONLINE 2022 SC 576 and Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 2007 (13) SCC 292. ... In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances as also law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Gupta (supra) and Hargurpratap Singh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the services of the p....
Petitioner(s) VERSUS PRESIDENT, JAN BHAGIDARI SAMITI & ORS. ... No. 3088/2022 passed by the Supreme Court Of India) MANISH GUPTA & ORS. ... Manish Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gaurav, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr. Abhishek Amritanshu, Adv.
PRESIDENT JAN BHAGIDARI SAMITHI (Annexure-BM). C. ... GUPTA AND ANOTHER VS. ... continue their service in respective colleges without insisting the additional qualifications. and declare that the action of the respondents no.1,2 and 4 to 21 in calling for fresh notification for the appointment of guest lecturers for the next ensuing years are contrary to the law declared in MANISH
Issue a writ of mandamus and declare that the action of the respondent in calling for fresh notification for the appointment of guest lecturers for the next ensuing year, as contrary to law declared in Manish Gupta And Another V/S President Jan Bhagidari Samithi and other
He also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Gupta and another etc. vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others [(2022) 6 SCALE 780]. 2. ... In support of his contention, he places reliance upon decision of Manju Gupta and others vs. ... State of Chhattisgarh and others [WPS No. 4406/2016, 27.02.2017] whereby similarly placed Guest Lecturers under the Director (Industrial Training ....
He also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Gupta and another etc. vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others [(2022) 6 SCALE 780]. 2. ... In support of his contention, he places reliance upon decision of Manju Gupta and others vs. ... State of Chhattisgarh and others [WPS No. 4406/2016, 27.02.2017] whereby similarly placed Guest Lecturers under the Director (Industrial Training ....
He also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Gupta and another etc. vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others [(2022) 6 SCALE 780]. 2. ... In support of his contention, he places reliance upon decision of Manju Gupta and others vs. ... State of Chhattisgarh and others [WPS No. 4406/2016, 27.02.2017] whereby similarly placed Guest Lecturers under the Director (Industrial Training....
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the documents it appears that, admittedly the writ petitioner was working as Data Entry-cum-Computer Operator for a period of more than 10 years since his engagement in the Department of Transport. The initial engagement of the writ petitioner is also not questioned, nor any illegality/ irregularity has been brought on record with respect to his engagement. Further, the respondents have replaced the petitioner with a new computer operator on contract basis through JAP IT which suggests that the services of Data Entry-cum-Comp....
He can be replaced only by a candidate who is regularly appointed by following regular procedure prescribed. Abdul Kadir and another Vs. Director General of Police, Assam and others reported in (2009) 6 SCC 611 has held that the process of termination and reappointment every year should be avoided and the candidates should be continued as long as the scheme continues, co-terminus with the scheme. In its recent judgment in the case of Mukesh Gupta Vs. President Jan Bhagidari Samiti in Civil Appeal Nos. 3084-3088 of 2022 decided on 21.04.2022, the Apex Court has reiterated the princi....
This Court considering the decisions available and going through the same finds as follows:- In the case between Manish Gupta & Anr. Etc. Versus President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others Etc. Etc. involving Civil Appeal Nos.3084-3088 of 2022 the Hon’ble apex Court taking into account the nature of appoint and that too selection based on duly constituted selection process and on the proposition one ad-hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc employee even though appointment was for a specific period and through para 12 and 13 held as follows:-
No post of guest faculty was granted to any college. Jan Bhagidari Samiti was not entitled to appoint anyone against the post of Assistant Professor and, therefore, it would be said that appointment made by Jan Bhagidari Samiti was nothing but an arrangement of the guest faculty in a particular subject though no such number of posts of Assistant Professor were available vacant in the college. The government had issued a policy for arrangement of guest faculties in a particular subject at particular college by its Jan Bhagidari Samiti and, therefore, if Jan Bhagidari Samiti after ob....
S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and Others, (1981) 1 SCC 87 Shri Jain submits that Article 224 of the Constitution of India provides for appointment of Additional and Acting Judges : Supp the three Judges in minority had issued a writ of mandamus on the criteria for fixing Judge strength for the High Courts.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
