‘Universities are temples’: Andhra Pradesh High Court rules ad-hoc employees can only be replaced by regular ones

The order added that the frequent engagement and disengagement of assistant professors on an ad hoc or contractual basis disrupts academic planning and directly impairs the quality of education imparted to students, who are the ultimate stakeholders in the educational process.

Findings

• When a contractual employee is engaged for a specific purpose or tenure under a defined agreement and does not form part of the permanent cadre, but where the duties performed are perennial, continuous, and essential to the functioning of the establishment, the employer is under a legal obligation to fill such posts through regular and fair recruitment procedures.
• The practice of replacing one ad-hoc or contractual employee with another ad-hoc or contractual employee amounts to an abuse of the contractual system.
• It effectively perpetuates temporary employment for work of a permanent nature, thereby defeating the very object of regular appointment and undermining the principles of fairness and equality in public employment.
• Contractual appointments may only operate as a temporary bridge until a regularly selected candidate is appointed.
• Once the need for the post is shown to be ongoing and essential, the employer cannot justify the continuation of contractual engagement by successive temporary appointments.
• Any replacement of a contractual employee must therefore be done by a duly selected regular employee, and not by another contractual or adhoc appointee.
• Permitting otherwise would allow the employer to indefinitely avoid regular recruitment, resulting in arbitrary employment practices and denying eligible candidates the opportunity to compete for regular appointment through proper channels, which cannot be sustained in law.
• The responsibility of imparting education is not an optional administrative exercise of the state, but a binding constitutional mandate linked to the future of the nation by virtue of Article 21-A (Right to Education) of the Constitution of India.
• Education is not a mere administrative function of the state, but a constitutional obligation intimately connected with the future of the nation.
• Ad-hoc teachers, who discharge duties identical to those of regular faculty against sanctioned posts, cannot be treated as disposable resources, subjected to recurring insecurity of tenure and livelihood.
• Such a system not only undermines the dignity of labour and the right to livelihood but also erodes institutional memory and academic excellence.
• Indian Constitution mandates under Articles 14, 21, and 21- A that the state and its instrumentalities have to balance the right of students to quality and stable education with fair, non-arbitrary employment practices.
• Ensuring that temporary arrangements do not become a permanent mode of administration at the cost of both educational standards and human dignity.

Background

• The petitioner, P Nagaraju, an Assistant Professor in Management at Rayalaseema University, challenged a 2017 circular that sought to recruit new temporary teaching assistants.
• Assistant professor Nagaraju, who had served as a contract lecturer for approximately 11 years, argued that the university’s attempt to replace him with another temporary appointee was arbitrary, illegal, and violated Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
• He was seeking direction from the state to set aside the circular.
• The petitioner was appointed at Sri Krishnadevaraya University in 2006 as a teaching assistant in botany on a contract basis by the select committee after going through the interview process, consequent to the notification issued by the concerned authorities calling for appointments of eligible candidates.
• In 2007, the petitioner was transferred to SK University, PG Centre, Kurnool, and from then onwards, he has continued to work as an assistant professor on a contract basis.
• Counsel for the petitioner, advocate P V Krishnaiah, argued that the temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary employee in the absence of a regular appointment.
• Appearing for the university, advocate N Vijaya Santhi SC submitted that following the recruitment of regular professors and the distribution of workload, there was no further requirement for the petitioner’s services