Supreme Court Upholds Ad-hoc Employee Rights: Manish Gupta & Anr. vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Ors. (21 April 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 21 April 2022

Citation: Not Available

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., B.R. Gavai, J.

Can ad-hoc employees, who are appointed through a due selection process, be replaced by other ad-hoc employees? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning guest lecturers appointed under the Jan Bhagidari Scheme in Madhya Pradesh. The Court examined whether these lecturers, appointed on a contractual basis, could continue in their posts until regularly selected candidates were appointed. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai, with the opinion authored by Justice B.R. Gavai.

Case Background

The State Government of Madhya Pradesh initiated the “Jan Bhagidari Scheme” on 30th September 1996, to involve public participation in the management of Government Colleges. Under this scheme, local management was handed over to committees known as Jan Bhagidari Samitis. These committees were composed of members from various fields, with the Chairman appointed by the State Government and the District Collector serving as the ex-officio Deputy Chairman. In 2001, the government allowed colleges to start self-financing courses, with appointments made on a contractual basis and honorariums decided by the Samiti.

In 2014, advertisements were issued for guest faculty positions for the academic year 2014-2015. The appellants, possessing the necessary qualifications, applied and were selected. However, after the academic year, their services were discontinued. Fresh advertisements were issued for the next academic year (2015-2016), leading the appellants to file a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The learned single judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the writ petition, directing that the guest lecturers should continue on their posts until regular selections were made and that they were entitled to salary as per the UGC circular issued in February 2010. Aggrieved by this, the State Government and the Jan Bhagidari Samitis appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench overturned the single judge’s decision, leading the guest lecturers to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Jan Bhagidari Scheme and the nature of appointments made under it. The scheme aimed to involve public participation in the management of government colleges. The government circular of 5th October 2001 allowed for self-financing courses with contractual appointments. The core legal issue is whether ad-hoc employees can be replaced by other ad-hoc employees or if they can only be replaced by regularly appointed candidates.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants were duly qualified and selected through a proper process for each academic year.
• The practice of engaging them at the start of the academic session and discontinuing them at the end, followed by fresh advertisements, was unfair.
• Though there was sufficient workload for regular posts, the appellants were deprived of regular employment.
• The appellants did not seek regularization but only continuation of service until regularly selected candidates were appointed.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The appointments were made under the Jan Bhagidari Scheme, which allowed for self-financing courses.
• The expenditure was met from tuition fees.
• The appointments were not ad-hoc or temporary but as guest lecturers on a contractual basis for 11 months.
• The requirement for guest lecturers varied yearly based on student enrollment.
• The scheme itself provided for guest faculty appointments, and since the appellants did not challenge the scheme, their petitions should be dismissed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the appellants, who were appointed on an ad-hoc basis, could be replaced by other ad-hoc employees or whether they could only be replaced by regularly appointed candidates.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Rattan Lal and others vs. State of Haryana and others [1985] 4 SCC 43* and Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and others [2007] 13 SCC 292* to establish that an ad-hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc employee. This principle was central to the Court’s decision to allow the appellants to continue in their posts until regular selections were made.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily concerned with the principle that ad-hoc employees, who are appointed through a due selection process, should not be replaced by other ad-hoc employees. The Court emphasized that such employees should only be replaced by candidates who are regularly selected through a prescribed procedure. The Court also considered the fact that the appellants were being subjected to a selection process every year, despite the availability of sufficient workload for regular positions. This weighed in the mind of the court to grant relief to the appellants.

The Court reasoned that the practice of replacing ad-hoc employees with other ad-hoc employees was not sustainable. The court stated, “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.”. The Court also noted that the advertisements for the positions indicated that the appointments were to be made after a due selection procedure, further supporting the view that the appellants were not merely temporary employees. The Court also observed that, “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.” The Court also stated that, “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 Court also considered that the appellants were being paid on a per-hour basis and that their continuation would depend on the number of students enrolled in the courses. The Court also stated that, “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.”

Key Takeaways

• Ad-hoc employees, appointed through a due selection process, cannot be replaced by other ad-hoc employees.
• Ad-hoc employees can only be replaced by regularly selected candidates.
• The continuation of ad-hoc employees may depend on the availability of sufficient workload or students in the relevant courses.
• Ad-hoc employees are entitled to their agreed upon honorarium.

This judgment reinforces the principle that ad-hoc appointments, while temporary, should not be used to create a cycle of temporary employment. It highlights the importance of following due process in appointments and ensuring that ad-hoc employees are not replaced by other ad-hoc employees.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The appellants would be entitled to continue on their respective posts until they are replaced by regularly selected candidates.
2. The appellants would continue on their respective posts provided that a sufficient number of students are available for the particular course(s) for which they are appointed.
3. The appellants would be entitled to an honorarium at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per hour, as is currently being paid to them.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that ad-hoc employees cannot be replaced by other ad-hoc employees and can only be replaced by regularly appointed candidates. This judgment reaffirms the existing legal position on the rights of ad-hoc employees and does not introduce a new position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, setting aside the Division Bench’s judgment and modifying the single judge’s order. The Court held that the guest lecturers, appointed on an ad-hoc basis, could not be replaced by other ad-hoc employees and were entitled to continue in their posts until regularly selected candidates were appointed, subject to the availability of sufficient students in their courses. This judgment provides clarity on the rights of ad-hoc employees and ensures that they are not subjected to a cycle of temporary employment.