Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a contract Assistant Professor in Management at Rayalaseema University, Kurnool. The petitioner had initially been appointed as a Teaching Assistant in Botany on contract basis at Sri Krishnadevaraya University on 07.07.2006 after an interview process. He was transferred to S.K. University PG Centre, Kurnool on 25.06.2007 and later continued at Rayalaseema University after its establishment by Act No.29/2008. By the time of the writ petition, he had completed about eleven years of service in the cadre of Assistant Professor on contract basis. His salary was paid on a consolidated basis, initially Rs.15,000/- per month, later enhanced to Rs.20,000/- and then Rs.30,000/-. The petitioner alleged that despite long service, his service was not regularized and he was paid less than regular employees performing similar duties. The immediate cause of action was Circular No. RU/Teaching Estt./Circular/2017 dated 18.05.2017 issued by Rayalaseema University, which proposed to recruit Assistant Professors/Teaching Assistants on temporary basis and asked existing contract faculty to submit applications, thereby threatening to replace the petitioner with another contract lecturer. The petitioner sought a declaration that the circular was arbitrary, illegal, malafide, discriminatory and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, and prayed for directions to restrain the respondents from replacing him and to continue him as contract lecturer till regularization. The respondent university filed a counter stating that the petitioner was engaged purely on temporary and contractual basis without a regular selection process prescribed by UGC regulations. The engagement was for limited periods, approximately 11 months per year, and no selection committee with external subject experts was constituted at the time of initial engagement. The respondents contended that the petitioner had no vested right to continuation or regularization. Regular teaching posts were sanctioned only through G.O.Ms.No.33 dated 30.06.2017, and the university recruited seven professors on a regular basis, reducing the workload and eliminating the requirement for temporary/contractual faculty. The university asserted that all temporary engagements were made in accordance with Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education guidelines and that contractual appointments were subject to annual performance review with no provision for automatic regularization. The core legal issue was whether a contract employee could be substituted by another contract employee in the absence of regular appointment through a proper notification. The petitioner's counsel submitted that temporary employees cannot be replaced by another temporary employee and relied on Rattan Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti. The petitioner did not press the regularization claim in this writ petition, focusing instead on the point of impermissible replacement. The respondent's counsel admitted that the petitioner was appointed on contract and that no regular notification had been issued for teaching staff selection as on the date of hearing; she also stated that the petitioner was continuing under an interim order dated 04.07.2017. The High Court considered the submissions and examined the well-settled legal principles. It quoted from Rattan Lal, where the Supreme Court deprecated the policy of ad hocism, observing that ad hoc teachers were subjected to arbitrary hiring and firing policies, and that this was unsound personnel policy with serious repercussions on education. The court framed the issue accordingly and noted that the respondent university had not issued any notification for regular selection process. The court indicated that replacing a temporary employee with another temporary employee was impermissible. The extracted judgment text ends before the final operative directions; however, the reasoning clearly favoured the petitioner's continuation and treated the impugned circular as unsustainable in the absence of a regular recruitment process.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Temporary/Contractual Employment - Replacement by Another Contract Employee - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14,16,21,226 - The petitioner, a contract Assistant Professor in a university, challenged a circular proposing to recruit temporary Assistant Professors/Teaching Assistants and asking existing contract faculty to apply, effectively replacing the petitioner with another contract employee. The court framed the core issue whether a contract employee can be substituted by another contract employee when no regular selection process has been initiated. Relying on Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana and Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti, the court held that a temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary employee, and that regular appointments must be made through a proper notification and selection process. The policy of 'ad hocism' was deprecated as arbitrary and harmful to education and unemployed teachers. The court indicated that the petitioner's continuation was protected by the interim order and that the university had not issued any regular notification; thus the impugned circular could not be used to replace the petitioner with another contract lecturer. Held that replacing one temporary employee with another temporary employee is impermissible; regular recruitment procedures must be followed (Paras 13-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a contract employee in a university can be substituted by another contract employee in the absence of regular appointment through proper notification?
Law Points
- A temporary/contractual employee cannot be substituted by another temporary/contractual employee in the absence of regular appointment through proper notification
- duty cannot be defeated by a continuous cycle of temporary appointments
- appointments to regular posts must follow prescribed selection process
- arbitrary hire-and-fire policy violates Articles 14
- 16
- 21 of Constitution
- UGC norms and State guidelines govern temporary academic appointments
- no automatic regularization without regular selection process.
