The Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar, has affirmed a foundational principle in public employment law: adhoc employees selected through transparent processes cannot be arbitrarily replaced by similar contractual arrangements. This judgment provides critical protection for temporary staff whose services are essential to institutional functioning, particularly in government-run technical education institutions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Five guest faculty members employed at Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) in Anantnag and Baramulla, Jammu & Kashmir, filed a joint Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the threat of discontinuation of their services. All applicants were engaged on a contractual basis through duly notified selection processes and were performing essential teaching roles in self-financed trades. They alleged that the respondents intended to replace them with new sets of similarly placed contractual appointees, which they contended violated settled legal principles.
Key Facts
- Applicant No. 1: Humaria Tabasum, aged 28, serving as Guest Faculty for Draftsman Civil (Self-Finance) at ITI Anantnag under Advertisement No. ITI/Ang/Estt/710-13 dated 23.08.2025
- Applicant No. 2: Misbah Abass, aged 27, serving as Guest Faculty for Stenographer and Secretarial Practice (Self-Finance) at ITI Anantnag under the same advertisement dated 23.08.2025
- Applicant No. 3: Akib Ahmad Bhat, aged 22, serving as Guest Faculty for Electrician (Self-Finance) at ITI Baramulla after selection through a notified process
- Applicant No. 4: Sadam Hussain Shah, aged 32, serving as Guest Faculty for Wood Work Technician (Self-Finance) at ITI Baramulla under Advertisement No. ITI/BLA/TRGS/2025/08-12 dated 04.11.2025
- Applicant No. 5: Rahi Afzal Malik, aged 32, serving as Guest Faculty for Driver-cum-Mechanic (Self-Finance) at ITI Anantnag under Advertisement No. ITI/Ang/Estt/710-13 dated 23.08.2025
- All applicants were appointed via formal engagement orders following advertised selection procedures
- Copies of advertisements and engagement orders were annexed to the application
- Applicants submitted representations seeking continuation of services; no response was received
- Respondents allegedly threatened discontinuation without assigning lawful grounds or following due process
Procedural History
- 23.08.2025: Advertisement issued for recruitment of guest faculty in multiple trades
- 04.11.2025: Separate advertisement issued for Wood Work Technician at ITI Baramulla
- Early 2026: Applicants began receiving informal notices of potential discontinuation
- 16.05.2026: Original Application No. 500 of 2026 filed before CAT Srinagar Bench
- 16.05.2026: Motion for joint application under Rule 4(5)(a) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, allowed by the Tribunal
- 16.05.2026: Hearing conducted and order passed on the same day
The Parties' Positions
Applicants: Argued that their selection was transparent, their services were indispensable, and replacing them with similarly placed contractual staff violated the principle that "one substitute cannot be replaced by another substitute" as laid down in Rattan Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. and affirmed in Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Respondents: Did not file a written counter-affidavit. No substantive opposition was presented before the Tribunal during oral hearing.
Relief Sought
- Declaration that applicants are entitled to continue in their positions until regular appointments are made
- Injunction against discontinuation of services without due process
- Direction to release pending salaries regularly
- Direction to consider their representations favorably
- Any other relief deemed appropriate
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether guest faculty appointed through notified selection processes can be replaced by another set of similarly placed contractual appointees, or whether such replacement violates the principle that one substitute cannot be replaced by another substitute as established by the Supreme Court.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel relied on three key precedents. First, Rattan Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (1987 AIR 478) held that replacing one adhoc employee with another adhoc employee is impermissible. Second, State of Haryana v. Piara Singh & Ors. (1992 (4) SCC 119) reinforced that such replacements amount to arbitrariness and violate Article 14. Third, Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2007 (13) SCC 292) emphasized that experienced contractual employees who have gained institutional knowledge should not be displaced by fresh appointees on identical terms, as this defeats the purpose of continuity and efficiency. Counsel also cited Mushtaq Ahmad Shah v. University of Kashmir (04.07.2025) by the High Court of J&K and Ladakh, which applied the same principle to teaching staff.
For the Respondent/State
No written or oral arguments were presented by the respondents. The Tribunal noted the absence of any counter-statement or justification for the proposed discontinuation.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal examined the nature of the applicants’ engagement. It found that all five were selected through formal, advertised processes and had been continuously employed in essential teaching roles. The respondents had not demonstrated any administrative necessity or lawful ground for replacing them. The Tribunal emphasized that the principle articulated in Rattan Lal and Hargurpratap Singh is not merely procedural but substantive: it protects against the cyclical abuse of contractual appointments to circumvent regular recruitment.
"One substitute cannot be replaced by another substitute."
The Court observed that the applicants had gained experience and institutional familiarity, making their continued service beneficial to the ITIs. Replacing them with new contractual appointees would result in loss of continuity, disruption of training, and wasteful expenditure on repeated selection processes. The Tribunal further noted that the respondents had not even responded to the applicants’ representations, indicating a failure to discharge their duty of fair administrative action.
The Court declined to express any opinion on the merits of regularization or the applicants’ entitlement to permanent posts. It confined its holding strictly to the illegality of replacing existing adhoc staff with new adhoc staff.
The Verdict
The applicants succeeded. The Tribunal directed the respondents to treat the Original Application as a representation and consider the applicants’ cases in accordance with law. The applicants shall continue in their respective positions until regular appointments are made through a lawful selection process. The respondents are prohibited from replacing the applicants with any similar contractual arrangement. No monetary relief was granted. Compliance is to be immediate.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Replacement of Adhoc Staff Is Legally Prohibited
- Practitioners representing contractual employees in government institutions must cite Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana and Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab to oppose replacement by similar arrangements
- This principle applies across all sectors: education, health, municipal services, and technical training
- Even if the replacement is done under a fresh advertisement, it remains unlawful if the nature of engagement is identical
Continuity Over Fresh Appointments
- Experience gained by adhoc employees is a legally recognized interest
- Institutions cannot justify discontinuation on grounds of "fresh selection" when the role and qualifications remain unchanged
- Courts will not permit administrative convenience to override the rule against circular replacement
Representation Must Be Considered
- Failure to respond to representations constitutes arbitrariness under Article 14
- Even in the absence of a formal petition, a written representation triggers a duty to consider
- Administrative silence is not a valid response to legitimate claims of service continuity
