contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees”

Published On - April 29, 2022

Adv V.K. Singh

The Hon’ble supreme Court in the matter of MANISH GUPTA & ANR. ETC. ETC vsPRESIDENT, JAN BHAGIDARI SAMIT & ORS. ETC. ETC.   Held that :-

A   perusal   of   the   advertisement   dated   24th  June,   2016

issued by the  Principal, Government Kamla  Raja  Girls Post

Graduate Autonomous College, Gwalior, which is at Annexure

P­2 of the Appeal Paper Book and the advertisement dated 2nd

July, 2016 issued by the Principal, SMS Government Model

Science College, Gwalior, M.P., which is at Annexure P­3 of the

Appeal Paper Book, would show that the appointments were to

be made after the candidates had gone through due selection

procedure.  Though Shri Nataraj, learned ASG has strenuously

urged that the appointments of the appellants were as guest

lecturers and not as ad hoc employees, from the nature of the

advertisements, it could clearly be seen that the appellants

were appointed on ad hoc basis.  It is a settled principle of law

that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc

employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate

who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure

prescribed.     Reliance   in   this   respect   can   be   placed   on   the

judgment of this Court in the case of Rattan Lal and others

  1. State of  Haryana  and  others1 and on the order of this

Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab

and others2.

  1. In that view of the matter, we do not find that an error was

committed by the learned single judge of the High Court by

directing   the   writ   petitioners   to   continue   to   work   on   their

respective posts till regular selections are made.  We, however,

find that the direction issued by the learned single judge of the

High Court that the writ petitioners would be entitled to get the

salary in accordance with the UGC circular is not sustainable.

The   advertisements   themselves   clearly   provided   that   the

selected   candidates   would   be   paid   the   honorarium   to   be

determined by the said Committee.

  1. We are informed at the Bar that the appellants are being

paid on a per hour basis, i.e., at the rate of Rs.1,000/­ per hour

and they are continuing to work in pursuance of the order of

status quo passed by this Court on 28th April, 2017.  We also

find   substance   with   the  submission   made  on   behalf   of   the

respondent – State that continuation of the appellants would

depend on the number of students offering themselves for the

concerned courses.

  1. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to partly allow

the present appeals.

  1. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
  2. The appeals are partly allowed.
  3. The impugned judgment and order dated 8th February,

2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench in Writ Appeal No.386

of 2016 along with companion matters is quashed and

set aside;

  1. The judgment and order dated 29th September, 2016

passed by learned single judge of the High Court is

modified as under:

(i) The writ petitioners ­ appellants herein would be

entitled to continue on their respective posts till

they are replaced by regularly selected candidates;

(ii) The writ petitioners ­ appellants herein would be

continued on their respective posts provided that a

sufficient number of students are available for the

particular course(s) for which the writ petitioners –

appellants herein are appointed.

(iii) The writ petitioners – appellants herein would be

entitled to honorarium at the rate of Rs.1,000/­

per hour as is being paid to them presently.

.