Using ad-hocs as substitutes for regular employment: High Court raps DU

“The petitioners were not engaged for a finite project or stop-gap arrangement, but have been entrusted with core instructional and administrative responsibilities within a permanent academic framework… The petitioners’ claim is not one of automatic absorption but of fair and non-arbitrary consideration for regularisation, backed by years of sustained contribution, institutional reliance, and constitutional equity,” the bench remarked in its order dated July 11.

“To deny such consideration would perpetuate the very mischief censured by the Hon’ble Supreme Court…The petitioners’ continued exclusion from the zone of regularisation, despite fulfilling all eligibility conditions and having rendered long and meritorious service, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 and cannot be sustained,” the bench observed.

The High Court referred to a 2024 judgment of the top court where the SC recognised that ad-hoc appointees performing indispensable functions may, over time, require humane and fair regularisation measures in cases of prolonged and uninterrupted service.

In another judgment earlier this year, the SC had furthered this principle while regularising the services of gardeners at Nagar Nigam in Ghaziabad. Holding that their dismissal and replacement through outsourced contracts constituted an unfair labour practice, the SC noted that they had worked for decades.

Khare and Talwar had moved the High Court in 2022, challenging a notification issued by DU, which laid down revised guidelines for screening or shortlisting candidates for direct recruitment to the post of assistant professor in various departments.

While submitting that they were eligible for recruitment to the posts in terms of the requirements in the notification, Khare and Talwar pointed out they were appointed in 2017 through proper procedure, although on an ad-hoc basis, where their services have been renewed successively, with artificial breaks, over the years.

They also pointed out they were not shortlisted for the interview despite fulfilling the minimum academic criteria prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC). They submitted that revised guidelines were issued, which were arbitrarily applied to exclude long-serving ad-hoc faculty members like themselves.

Khare and Talwar sought the regularisation of their employment with the university as well as the quashing of the DU notification.

Underlining that the petitioners have uninterruptedly “taught continuously for more than a decade”, the bench, in its order, said their prolonged engagement by DU “demonstrates that the petitioners have been treated as indispensable to the functioning of the Department.”

In the current case, the bench added, regular recruitment was not conducted for a long time, “despite repeated extension of the petitioners’ tenure against these very posts”.

“This reinforces the presumption that (DU) was consciously using ad-hoc appointments as a substitute for regular employment, thereby circumventing its obligation to provide fair service conditions. Once it is established that the petitioners were appointed through an open, competitive process, against sanctioned posts, and continued to discharge regular functions for years together, the temporary label attached to their appointment cannot be relied upon to defeat their legitimate claim for equitable treatment,” the bench reasoned.