Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to guest faculty appointed under the Jan Bhagidari Scheme in Government Colleges of Madhya Pradesh. The appellants were selected through due process for the academic year 2014-2015 but were discontinued at the end of the year and fresh advertisements were issued for the next year. They filed writ petitions seeking continuation till regular selections. The single judge allowed their petitions directing continuation and salary as per UGC circular. The Division Bench reversed this decision. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, holding that the appellants were ad hoc employees and cannot be replaced by other ad hoc employees; they are entitled to continue till replaced by regularly selected candidates, subject to availability of students. The salary direction was modified to honorarium at Rs.1,000 per hour as per the contract.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Ad Hoc Appointment - Replacement by Regular Selection - An ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee; he can only be replaced by a regularly selected candidate following regular procedure. The court held that the appellants, though termed guest lecturers, were appointed on ad hoc basis and thus entitled to continue till replaced by regularly selected candidates. (Paras 12-13)
B) Service Law - Guest Faculty - Continuation Dependent on Student Strength - The continuation of ad hoc teachers appointed under Jan Bhagidari Scheme depends on the availability of sufficient number of students for the particular courses. The court modified the single judge's order to include this condition. (Paras 14-16)
C) Service Law - Remuneration - Honorarium as per Contract - The direction of the single judge to pay salary as per UGC circular was set aside as the advertisement clearly provided that honorarium would be determined by the Committee. The court directed payment at the rate of Rs.1,000 per hour as being paid presently. (Paras 13, 16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether guest faculty appointed under Jan Bhagidari Scheme can be discontinued at the end of academic year and replaced by fresh ad hoc appointments, and whether they are entitled to salary as per UGC circular.
Final Decision
Appeals partly allowed. Division Bench judgment set aside. Single judge order modified: appellants entitled to continue on their posts till replaced by regularly selected candidates, subject to availability of sufficient students for the courses. Appellants entitled to honorarium at Rs.1,000 per hour as being paid presently.
Law Points
- Ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee
- can only be replaced by regularly selected candidate
- Guest faculty appointed under Jan Bhagidari Scheme are ad hoc employees
- Continuation of ad hoc employees depends on availability of students
- Honorarium as per contract not UGC circular
Case Details
Civil Appeal Nos. 3084-3088 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12946-12950 of 2017)
L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai
Shri Rana Mukherjee (for appellants), Shri K.M. Nataraj (for respondents)
Manish Gupta & Anr. etc. etc.
President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Ors. etc. etc.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against Division Bench judgment setting aside single judge order directing continuation of guest faculty appointed under Jan Bhagidari Scheme.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought continuation of their services as guest faculty till regular selections are made.
Filing Reason
Appellants were discontinued after academic year and fresh advertisements issued for next year; they challenged the discontinuation.
Previous Decisions
Single judge allowed writ petitions directing continuation and salary as per UGC circular; Division Bench allowed appeals of State and Samiti, setting aside single judge order.
Issues
Whether guest faculty appointed under Jan Bhagidari Scheme are ad hoc employees entitled to continue till replaced by regularly selected candidates?
Whether they are entitled to salary as per UGC circular or honorarium as per contract?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that they were duly qualified and selected, but were being replaced by fresh ad hoc appointments each year, depriving them of regular employment; they sought continuation till regular selections.
Respondents argued that appointments were as guest lecturers on contractual basis for 11 months, under a self-financing scheme, and continuation depends on student strength; the scheme itself provided for guest faculty.
Ratio Decidendi
An ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee; he can only be replaced by a regularly selected candidate. Guest faculty appointed under Jan Bhagidari Scheme are ad hoc employees. Continuation depends on student strength. Remuneration is as per contract, not UGC circular.
Judgment Excerpts
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.
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.
Procedural History
Writ petitions filed before single judge of MP High Court in 2016 allowed on 29-09-2016. State and Samiti appealed to Division Bench which allowed appeals on 08-02-2017. Appellants filed SLP before Supreme Court which granted leave and partly allowed appeals on 21-04-2022.
