Srinagar, Oct 28, KDC: Reaffirming the established legal doctrine on public employment, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that a temporary or adhoc employee cannot be replaced by another adhoc employee, and such arrangements can only be substituted through a regular recruitment process.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri passed the directive while allowing a writ petition filed by two guest lecturers who were facing imminent disengagement from the Kashmir Government Polytechnic College in Gogjibagh, Srinagar.
The petitioners, Shaika Hassan and Syed Majid Ali, were engaged as guest lecturers in the Electronics & Communications and Medical Lab-Technology disciplines, respectively, for the August-December 2024 academic session following a formal selection process. Apprehending that the college authorities were planning to terminate their services and replace them with a fresh set of temporary guest faculty, they approached the High Court.
The Skill Development Department opposed the plea, arguing that the engagement was a specialized, transient arrangement on a consolidated basis. The government contended that the candidates had signed an undertaking accepting that they would have no right to claim regularization or permanent absorption.
Rejecting the government’s stance to swap one temporary batch with another, Justice Sekhri relied on a catena of Supreme Court judgments to observe that substituting one temporary arrangement with an equivalent temporary arrangement amounts to arbitrary state action, violating the fundamental right to equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
“It is clear from the aforesaid principles articulated by Hon’ble Supreme Court, that an adhoc or temporary employee cannot be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee and a temporary arrangement can only be substituted by a regular selection process to prevent the arbitrary hire-and-fire practices by the Government and its instrumentalities,” the High Court observed.
The court further noted that the rationale behind this doctrine is to ensure that the Government, acting as a model employer, “does not indulge in caprice or create a perpetual state of job insecurity through revolving-door employment mechanisms, while the underlying institutional need for the work remains constant.”
The High Court directed the authorities to allow the petitioners to continue in their respective disciplines with all existing benefits under the rules, as long as the institutional requirement exists. The court explicitly ordered that the government is “prohibited & restrained from replacing them under a similar adhoc arrangement or contract.”
However, Justice Sekhri clarified that the continuation of their services remains subject to their good conduct and satisfactory performance. The court also made it clear that this interim relief shall not impede the government’s right to fill the posts through a formal and regular selection process in the future, nor does the judgment confer any automatic right of permanent regularization upon the petitioners. (KDC)
