Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Mushtaq Ahmad Shah vs University Of Kashmir & Ors on 4 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 19.05.2025
Pronounced on:04.07.2025
WP (C) Nos. 708/2023, 249/2025, 209/2021,
376/2024, 612/2025, 608/2023, 665/2023,
283/2023, 362/2023, 129/2023, 3132/2023,
543/2025, CCP(S) 49/2024, WP(C)
Nos.731/2022, 706/2023, 321/2023,
126/2024, 527/2025, 269/2023, 621/2024,
CCP(S) 206/2024, WP(C) Nos.322/2023,
3290/2023, 169/2024, 2983/2024, CCP(S)
Nos.62/2024 & 88/2025.
MUSHTAQ AHMAD SHAH
SADIA SHAH
SHABIR AHMAD AKHOON & ORS.
DR. ISHFAQ NAZIR WANI
MOHAMMAD ASHRAF
MOHAMMAD AMIN MEER
NAIYARA KHAN
NUSRAT AHAD PANDIT
DR. ASHAQ HUSSAIN SOFI & ANR.
MOHAMMAD YOUNUS THOKAR
DANISH YAQOOB & ORS.
MASARAT MAJEES & ORS.
DR. NOOR AFSHAN
AAQIB HUSSAIN & ORS.
DR. RUKHSANA RAHIM & ANR.
DR. SABA MANZOOR GANAI & ORS.
...PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. G.A. Lone, Advocate Mr. Mujeeb Andrabi,
Advocate. Mr. Sheikh Mushtaq, Advocate, Mr.
Owais Shafi, Advocate, Mr. Manzoor Ahmad
Ganai, Advocate, Mr. Arif Sikandar, Advocate
with Ms. Asifa Padder & Ms. Laraib Anjeelena,
Advocates & Mr. S.M. Saleem, Advocate.
Vs.
UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIR & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Syed Faisal Qadiri, Sr Advocate with Mr.
Khursheed Dar, Advocate. Mr. Asif Maqbool,
Advocate. Mr. Mansoor Bukhari, Advocate.
Ms. Mariya, Advocate.
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 1 of 45
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) The writ petitioners in all the afore-titled writ petitions
have been engaged on academic arrangement basis by
respondent University and their engagement has been
extended from time to time either by virtue of interim orders
passed by this Court or otherwise. One of the main legal
issues that has arisen out of the afore-titled writ petitions
is as to whether services of a candidate engaged on
academic arrangement basis can be put to an end after the
culmination of the session and be replaced by a similar
arrangement. Therefore, all these writ petitions have been
clubbed together for their analogous hearing/
consideration.
2) Before going to the fact situation of the individual writ
petitions, it would be apt to refer to the submissions made
by learned counsels appearing for the writ petitioners and
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent
institutes on the issue of legality of replacing a candidate
engaged on academic arrangement basis by a similar
arrangement. Learned counsels appearing for the writ
petitioners have contended that it has been the consistent
view of the Supreme Court as also the view of various High
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 2 of 45
Court of the Country including this Court that a
contractual or an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by
another set of contractual/ad hoc employee and that such
an employee can be replaced only by a candidate who has
been appointed on substantive basis by following the
regular procedure prescribed under the rules. In this
regard, the learned counsels for the writ petitioners have
placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Manish Gupta & another etc. etc. vs.
President Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Ors., 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 485, which has been followed by this Court in
the case of Murad Ali Sajan & Ors. Vs. UT of J&K and
others (WP(C) No.2635/2022 decided on 06.12.2022).
3) The stand of the respondent Institutes is that the
engagement of the writ petitioners was for a specific
academic session which stands expired, therefore, they are
debarred from approaching this Court for invoking
extraordinary writ jurisdiction. According to the respondent
institutes, service conditions of the writ petitioners were
governed by the terms and conditions laid down in the
advertisement notices, pursuant to which they were
engaged and after their engagement, they had furnished
undertakings with the respondent institutes wherein they
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 3 of 45
had declared that they would not be claiming regularization
and that they would adhere to the terms and conditions of
their engagement. It is the further stand of the respondent
institutes that there is requirement of updated and talented
candidates for performing the functions as contractual
lecturers and in case fresh advertisement notices for
subsequent academic sessions are not issued, not only the
rights of new talented and qualified persons to participate
in the selection process would be infringed but even the
student community will be deprived of quality education.
To support these contentions, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondents has placed reliance upon the
judgments of this Court in the cases of State of J&K & Ors.
Vs. Afshan Majid & Ors. 2008 (2) JKJ[HC] 550, Rajani
Kumari & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. 2017 (1) JKJ[HC] 310, and
judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Rajeev Singh and
Ors. (2024) IV LLJ 320MP.
4) It has been further argued that merely because the
writ petitioners continue to perform their duties on the
strength of interim orders passed by this Court from time
to time, they cannot claim right to continue on permanent
basis. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 4 of 45
judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of
U.P and others vs. Raj Karan Singh, (1998) 8 SCC 529,
and State of Rajasthan and others vs. Daya Lal and
others, (2011) 2 SCC 429.
5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused record of the case.
6) So far as the position of law as regards the
replacement of contractual/ad hoc employees engaged on
academic arrangement basis by similar set of employees, is
concerned, the same is more or less settled. The Supreme
Court has, in the case of Rattan Lal and others vs. State
of Haryana and others, (1985) 4 SCC 43, while dealing
with the cases where the State Government had resorted to
practice of appointing teachers on ad hoc basis at the
commencement of an academic year and terminating their
services before the commencement of next summer
vacation and to reappoint them on ad hoc basis at the
commencement of next academic year, deprecated this
policy of the State Government to appoint teachers on ad
hoc basis and terminate their services and then appoint
them on ad hoc basis. In this regard, it would be apt to refer
to the relevant observations of the Supreme Court, which
are reproduced as under:
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 5 of 45
“In all these petitions the common question which
arises for decision is whether it is open to the State
Government to appoint teachers on an ad hoc basis at
the commencement of an academic year and terminate
their services before the commencement of the next
summer vacation, or earlier, to appoint them again on
an ad hoc basis at the commencement of next
academic year and to terminate their services before
the commencement of the succeeding summer
vacation or earlier and to continue to do so year after
year. A substantial number of such ad hoc
appointments are made in the existing vacancies which
have remained unfilled for three to four years. It is the
duty of the State Government to take steps to appoint
teachers in those vacancies in accordance with the
rules as early as possible. The State Government of
Haryana has failed to discharge that duty in these
cases. It has been appointing teachers for quite some
time on an ad hoc basis for short periods as stated
above without any justifiable reason. In some cases the
appointments are made for a period of six months only
and they are renewed after a break of a few days. The
number of teachers in the State of Haryana who are
thus appointed on such ad hoc basis is very large
indeed. If the teachers had been appointed regularly,
they would have been entitled to the benefits of
summer vacation along with the salary and allowances
payable in respect of that period and to all other
privileges such as casual leave, medical leave,
maternity leave etc. available to all the Government
servants. These benefits are denied to these ad hoc
teachers unreasonably on account of this pernicious
system of appointment adopted by the State
Government. These ad hoc teachers are unnecessarily
subjected to an arbitrary “hiring and firing” policy. These
teachers who constitute the bulk of the educated
unemployed are compelled to accept these jobs on an
ad hoc basis with miserable conditions of service. The
Government appears to be exploiting this situation. This
is not a sound personnel policy. It is bound to have
serious repercussions on the educational institutions
and the children studying there. The policy of “ad
hocism” followed by the State Government for a long
period has led to the breach of Article 14 and Article 16
of the Constitution. Such a situation cannot be
permitted to last any longer. It is needless to say that
the State Government is expected to function as a
model employer.”
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 6 of 45
7) Replacement of ad hoc or temporary employees with
another set of temporary or ad hoc employees was
deprecated by the Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others, (1992) 4
SCC 118. In the said case, the Supreme Court made the
following observations”
“21. Ordinarily speaking, the creation and abolition
of a post is the prerogative of the Executive. It is the
Executive again that lays down the conditions of
service subject, of course, to a law made by the
appropriate legislature. This power to prescribe the
conditions of service can be exercised either by
making rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution or (in the absence of such rules) by
issuing rules/instruct-ions in exercise of its
executive power. The court comes into the picture
only to ensure observance of fundamental rights,
statutory provisions, rules and other instructions, if
any, governing the conditions of service. The main
concern of the court in such matters is to ensure the
rule of law and to see that the Executive acts fairly
and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with
the requirements of Articles 14 and 16. It also means
that the State should not exploit its employees nor
should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness
and misery of either the unemployed persons or the
employees, as the case may be. As is often said, the
State must be a model employer…..”
8) In the case of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of
Punjab & Ors. (2007) 13 SCC 292, the Supreme Court has,
while dealing with the cases where appointment of the
employees was made on ad hoc basis in several colleges,
observed as under:
“3. We have carefully looked into the judgment of
the High Court and other pleadings that haveWP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 7 of 45
been put forth before this Court. It is clear that
though the appellants may not be entitled to
regular appointment as such it cannot be said
that they will not be entitled to the minimum of
the pay scale nor that they should not be
continued till regular incumbents are appointed.
The course adopted by the High Court is to
displace one ad hoc arrangement by another ad
hoc arrangement which is not at all appropriate
for these persons who have gained experience
which will be more beneficial and useful to the
colleges concerned rather than to appoint
persons afresh on ad hoc basis. Therefore, we
set aside the orders made by the High Court to
the extent the same deny the claim of the
appellants of minimum pay scale and
continuation in service till regular incumbents
are appointed. We direct that they shall be
continued in service till regular appointments are
made on minimum of the pay scale. The appeals
shall stand allowed in part accordingly”.
9) The Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir
and another vs. Director General of Police, Assam and
others, (2009) 6 SCC 611, which was a case wherein
servicemen were being subjected to re-selection after the
expiry of their contracts despite the fact that the scheme
under which they were appointed was not discontinued,
held as under:
“17. When the ad hoc appointment is under a
scheme and is in accordance with the selection
process prescribed by the scheme, there is no
reason why those appointed under the scheme
should not be continued as long as the scheme
continues. Ad hoc appointments under schemes
are normally coterminous with the scheme (subject
of course to earlier termination either on medical or
disciplinary grounds, or for unsatisfactory service
or on attainment of normal age of retirement).
Irrespective of the length of their ad hoc service or
the scheme, they will not be entitled toWP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 8 of 45
regularisation nor to the security of tenure and
service benefits available to the regular employees.
In this background, particularly in view of the
continuing Scheme, the ex-serviceman employed
after undergoing the selection process, need not be
subjected to the agony, anxiety, humiliation and
vicissitudes of annual termination and re-
engagement, merely because their appointment is
termed as ad hoc appointments.
18. We are therefore of the view that the learned
Single Judge was justified in observing that the
process of termination and reappointment every
year should be avoided and the appellants should
be continued as long as the Scheme continues, but
purely on ad hoc and temporary basis, coterminous
with the Scheme….”
10) Relying upon the upon the ratio laid down in Rattan
Lal‘s case (supra) followed in Hargurpratap Singh’s case
(supra), the Supreme Court has, in Manish Gupta and anr.
(supra), while dealing with a case where teachers were
appointed as guest faculty for a particular academic year
and after the end of the academic year their services were
discontinued whereafter fresh advertisements were issued
for next academic year, observed as under:
“13. A perusal of the advertisement dated 24-6-
2016 issued by the Principal, Government
Kamla Raja Girls Post Graduate Autonomous
College, Gwalior, which is at Annexure P-2 of
the appeal paperbook and the advertisement
dated 2-7-2016 issued by the Principal, SMS
Government Model Science College, Gwalior,
M.P., which is at Annexure P-3 of the appeal
paperbook, would show that the appointments
were to be made after the candidates had gone
through due selection procedure. Though Shri
Nataraj, learned ASG has strenuously urged
that the appointments of the appellants wereWP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 9 of 45
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.
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.
Reliance in this respect can be placed on the
judgment of this Court in Rattan Lal v. State of
Haryana , (1985) 4 SCC 43 and on the order of
this Court in Hargurpratap Singh v. State of
Punjab v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 292.”
11) This Court in the case of Murad Ali Sajan & Ors.
(supra), after following the ratio laid down by the Supreme
Court in Munish Gupta’s case (supra), came to the
conclusion that the action of respondents in the said case
in inviting applications from the candidates for filling up of
posts of Staff Nurses on academic arrangement basis after
disengaging the services of the petitioners therein who were
already working on a similar arrangement with the
respondents therein, was not in accordance with law. It was
further observed by this Court that the respondents therein
can replace the writ petitioners therein only by filling up the
vacant posts of Staff Nurses on substantive basis.
12) Recently, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the
case of Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University vs.
Neeru Kalher and Ors. (LPA No.615/2023 decided on
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 10 of 45
31.08.2023), after considering various decisions of the
Supreme Court on the issue, summed up the legal
principles in the following manner:
“23. The principles emerging from the afore-
stated precedents are squarely applicable to
the case at hand. The Appellant University,
without effecting any change to their scheme of
employing Master Trainers sought to replace the
Respondents with similarly situated fresh
contractual employees. It is pertinent to note
that the Appellant University has not alleged any
deficiency in services provided by the
Respondents or any instance of misconduct.
They have failed to provide any rationale
justifying the replacement of the Respondents
other than asserting their desire to attract fresh
talent. The action of replacing contractual
faculty members who possess experience is not
only unfair to the Respondents but is also
detrimental for the University and its students.
Under these circumstances, this Court finds no
reason to interfere with the finding of the
Learned Single Judge that the action of the
Appellant University is untenable by virtue of
being contrary to the law laid down in Piara
Singh (supra).”
13) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents has contended that the basic principle relating
to impermissibility of replacing a contractual employee by
a similar arrangement has been laid down in Piara Singh’s
case (supra) but the Supreme Court in its later Constitution
Bench judgment in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others, (2006) 4
SCC 1, has impliedly overruled the ratio laid down in Piara
Singh‘s case, therefore, the very basis of the legal principle
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 11 of 45
that a contractual employee cannot be replaced by a similar
arrangement stands knocked down by the ratio laid down
by the Supreme Court in Uma Devi’s case (supra).
14) The contention of the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondents appears to be misconceived
for the reason that the direction in Piara Singh‘s case
(supra) that ad hoc or temporary employees should not be
replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employees and
should only be replaced by regularly selected employees,
though considered in Uma Devi’s case (supra), was not
disagreed with. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the
relevant paras of Uma Devi’s judgment wherein
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered the
ratio laid down in Piara Singh‘s case. The same are
reproduced as under:
“23. We may now consider State of Haryana v. Piara
Singh. There, the Court was considering the
sustainability of certain directions issued by the High
Court in the light of various orders passed by the State
for the absorption of its ad hoc or temporary
employees and daily-wagers or casual labour. This
Court started by saying : (SCC p. 134, para 21)
“21. Ordinarily speaking, the creation
and abolition of a post is the prerogative of the
executive. It is the executive again that lays
down the conditions of service subject, of
course, to a law made by the appropriate
legislature. This power to prescribe the
conditions of service can be exercised either by
making rules under the proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution or (in the absence of suchWP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 12 of 45
rules) by issuing rules/instructions in exercise
of its executive power. The court comes into the
picture only to ensure observance of
fundamental rights, statutory provisions, rules
and other instructions, if any, governing the
conditions of service.”
24. This Court then referred to some of the earlier
decisions of this Court while stating : (SCC p. 134,
para 21)
“The main concern of the court in such
matters is to ensure the rule of law and to see
that the executive acts fairly and gives a fair
deal to its employees consistent with the
requirements of Articles 14 and 16. It also
means that the State should not exploit its
employees nor should it seek to take advantage
of the helplessness and misery of either the
unemployed persons or the employees, as the
case may be. As is often said, the State must be
a model employer. It is for this reason, it is held
that equal pay must be given for equal work,
which is indeed one of the directive principles
of the Constitution. It is for this very reason it is
held that a person should not be kept in a
temporary or ad hoc status for long. Where a
temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued
for long the court presumes that there is need
and warrant for a regular post and accordingly
directs regularisation. While all the situations in
which the court may act to ensure fairness
cannot be detailed here, it is sufficient to
indicate that the guiding principles are the ones
stated above.”
25. This Court then concluded in paras 45 to 49 : (SCC
p. 152)
“45. The normal rule, of course, is regular
recruitment through the prescribed agency but
exigencies of administration may sometimes
call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to
be made. In such a situation, effort should
always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary
employee by a regularly selected employee as
early as possible. Such a temporary employee
may also compete along with others for such
regular selection/appointment. If he gets
selected, well and good, but if he does not, he
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 13 of 45
must give way to the regularly selected
candidate. The appointment of the regularly
selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept
in abeyance for the sake of such an ad
hoc/temporary employee.
46. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary
employee should not be replaced by another
ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be
replaced only by a regularly selected
employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary
action on the part of the appointing authority.
47. Thirdly, even where an ad hoc or temporary
employment is necessitated on account of the
exigencies of administration, he should
ordinarily be drawn from the employment
exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which
case the pressing cause must be stated on the
file. If no candidate is available or is not
sponsored by the employment exchange,
some appropriate method consistent with the
requirements of Article 16 should be followed.
In other words, there must be a notice
published in the appropriate manner calling for
applications and all those who apply in
response thereto should be considered fairly.
48. An unqualified person ought to be
appointed only when qualified persons are not
available through the above processes.
49. If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary
employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the
authorities must consider his case for
regularisation provided he is eligible and
qualified according to the rules and his service
record is satisfactory and his appointment
does not run counter to the reservation policy
of the State.”
26. With respect, why should the State be allowed to
depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary
employment in permanent posts? This Court, in our
view, is bound to insist on the State making regular
and proper recruitments and is bound not to
encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent
transgression of the rules of regular recruitment. The
direction to make permanent–the distinction
between regularisation and making permanent, was
not emphasised here–can only encourage the State,
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 14 of 45
the model employer, to flout its own rules and would
confer undue benefits on a few at the cost of many
waiting to compete. With respect, the direction made
in para 50 (of SCC) of Piara Singh is to some extent
inconsistent with the conclusion in para 45 (of SCC)
therein. With great respect, it appears to us that the
last of the directions clearly runs counter to the
constitutional scheme of employment recognised in
the earlier part of the decision. Really, it cannot be
said that this decision has laid down the law that all ad
hoc, temporary or casual employees engaged without
following the regular recruitment procedure should be
made permanent.”
15) From the above, it nowhere comes to the fore that the
ratio laid down in Piara Singh‘s case (supra) that an ad hoc
or temporary employee should not be replaced by a similar
arrangement has been dissented to in Uma Devi’s case.
The argument of learned Senior Counsel in this regard is
without any merit.
16) Thus, right from Rattan Lal‘s case (supra) to Manish
Gupta’s case (supra), it has been the consistent view of the
Supreme Court that an ad hoc or temporary employee
cannot be replaced by a similar arrangement and such an
employee can be replaced only by a regularly selected
employee.
17) So far as the contention of respondent institutes that
by inviting fresh applications, fresh talent would be engaged
for imparting quality education to the student’s community
and in case the respondent institutes are stopped from
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 15 of 45
inviting fresh applications at the end of academic sessions,
it would be detrimental to the larger interests of student
community and also to the interests of new candidates, is
concerned, the same also appears to be without any merit.
This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the
Supreme Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh’s case
(supra), wherein it has been held that continuing the ad hoc
arrangement of already engaged persons who have gained
experience would be more beneficial and useful to the
colleges rather than to appoint candidates afresh on ad hoc
basis.
18) Apart from the above, replacing teaching faculty after
every academic session, breaks continuity which is
ultimately detrimental to the academic career of the
students. A teacher who is engaged to impart education to
students has not only to be abreast with the knowledge of
the relevant subject but he has to relate to the students and
to strike a chord with them. This he/she can do only by
interacting with the students for a sufficiently long period
of time. If we keep on replacing teaching faculty at short
intervals, it will have deleterious consequences on the
quality of education that would be imparted to the students.
The argument of learned Senior Counsel for the
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 16 of 45
respondents is, therefore, specious and deserves to be
rejected outrightly.
19) So far as the judgment of this Court in Afshan Majid
& Ors case (supra), relied upon by learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondents, is concerned, this Court had
no occasion to consider the ratio laid down by the Supreme
Court in Munish Gupta’s case (supra), obviously because
the said judgment was delivered only in the year 2022.
Similarly, in Rajani Kumari & Ors case (supra) also, the
ratio laid down in Munish Gupta’s case (supra) has not
been considered.
20) So far as judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Rajeev Singh and Ors. case (supra) is concerned, in the
said case the post of Data Entry Operator had been created
only for two years. It is in those circumstances that the
Court held that the State had no interest of creating any
permanent post of Data Entry Operator, as such, the
contract of the writ petitioners therein could not have been
extended beyond the prescribed period.
21) For what has been discussed hereinbefore, there is no
doubt in holding that the faculty engaged on academic
arrangement basis or contractual basis to impart education
to the students cannot be replaced by a similar
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 17 of 45
arrangement after conclusion of the contract period or after
conclusion of the academic session. They can be replaced
only by regularly selected/appointed candidates. Merely
because the candidates have executed undertakings
wherein they have declared that they will not claim
regularization and that they would adhere to the terms and
conditions of the advertisement notice(s) does not give a
licence to the respondent institutes to resort to hire and fire
policy. Having regard to the consistent legal position on the
subject, notwithstanding the undertakings executed by the
writ petitioners, they cannot be replaced by a similar
arrangement. They can be replaced only by filling up the
posts on substantive basis in accordance with the relevant
rules. It is also clear that the respondent institutes cannot
be forced to continue the candidates engaged on academic
arrangement/contractual basis in perpetuity in case there
is no requirement for the respondent institutes to make
such engagements/arrangements.
22) In the light of the aforesaid legal position on the
subject, the fact situation in individual writ petitions is
required to be analyzed.
23) WP(C) No.708/2023
23.1) Through the medium of this writ petition, the
petitioner has challenged advertisement notice dated
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 18 of 45
31.01.2023 issued by the respondent University to the
extent of inviting applications for filling up of two positions
of contractual lecturers in the discipline of Foreign
Language for the Session 2023. The petitioner claims to be
working as a contractual lecturer with the respondent
University in the said discipline having been engaged as
such since the academic session 2018.
23.2) In view of the legal position discussed hereinbefore,
the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents not to replace the petitioner with a similar
arrangement till such time regular selection to the post,
which the petitioner is holding, is made in accordance with
the relevant Recruitment Rules. The respondents shall,
however, be at liberty to dispense with the services of the
petitioner on the ground of non-performance or on
disciplinary grounds.
24) WP(C) No.249/2025
24.1) The petitioner, through the medium of present writ
petition, has challenged advertisement notice dated
09.01.2025 issued by the respondent University to the
extent of inviting applications for engagement of
contractual Assistant Professors on academic arrangement
basis for Session 2025 in the discipline of Electrical
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 19 of 45
Engineering. The petitioner claims to have been engaged on
academic arrangement basis in the aforesaid discipline in
the year 2023 and is stated to be working as such till date.
24.2) In view of the legal position discussed hereinbefore,
the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents not to replace the petitioner with a similar
arrangement till such time regular selection to the post,
which the petitioner is holding, is made in accordance with
the relevant Recruitment Rules. The respondents shall,
however, be at liberty to dispense with the services of the
petitioner on the ground of non-performance or on
disciplinary grounds.
25) WP(C) No.209/2021
WP(C) No.376/2024
25.1) The writ petitioners claim to be working as
Lecturers/Assistant Professors on contractual basis in
various disciplines with the respondent University. The
petitioners claim that they have been appointed on
academic arrangement basis and are working as such since
the year 2020.
25.2) Vide writ petition bearing WP(C) No.209/2021, the
petitioners have sought a direction upon the respondents
that they should not be replaced by a similar arrangement
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 20 of 45
whereas vide writ petition bearing WP(C) No.376/2024,
they have challenged advertisement notification dated
15.01.2024, whereby applications have been invited by the
respondent University for engagement of contractual
Lecturers for academic Sessions 2024 in respect of the
disciplines in which the petitioners are presently working.
25.3) In view of the legal position discussed hereinbefore,
both these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to
the respondents not to replace the petitioners with a similar
arrangement till such time regular selection to the posts,
which the petitioners are holding, is made in accordance
with the relevant Recruitment Rules. The respondents
shall, however, be at liberty to dispense with the services of
the petitioners on the ground of non-performance or on
disciplinary grounds.
26) WP(C) No.612/2025
26.1) The petitioner claims to be working as contractual
Assistant Professor in the discipline of Urdu with the
respondent University in South Campus, Anantnag, for the
last eight years. He has laid challenge to the advertisement
notice dated 09.01.2025 issued by respondent University,
whereby fresh applications have been invited for
engagement of contractual Assistant Professors for the
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 21 of 45
academic Session 2025 in the discipline in which the
petitioner is presently working.
26.2) In view of the legal position discussed hereinbefore,
the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents not to replace the petitioner with a similar
arrangement till such time regular selection to the post,
which the petitioner is holding, is made in accordance with
the relevant Recruitment Rules. The respondents shall,
however, be at liberty to dispense with the services of the
petitioner on the ground of non-performance or on
disciplinary grounds.
27) WP(C) No.608/2023
27.1) The petitioner claims to be working as contractual
Lecturer in Iqbal Institute of Culture and Philosophy,
University of Kashmir since the year 2022. He has
challenged advertisement notice dated 31.01.2023 issued
by the respondent University, whereby applications have
been invited for engagement of contractual Lecturers for the
Sessions 2023 in the aforesaid discipline.
27.2) The petitioner has, besides laying challenge to the
aforesaid advertisement notice on the ground that he
cannot be replaced by a contractual/academic
arrangement, also contended that the criteria prescribed in
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 22 of 45
the advertisement notice as regards the desirable
qualification/specialization is irrational.
27.3) Since the writ petition involves determination of an
additional issue, therefore, the same is directed to be
delinked for its separate consideration. It is, however,
provided that the interim order passed in the writ petition
shall continue till next date of hearing.
27.4) The Registry shall renotify this writ petition on
25.08.2025.
28) WP(C) No.665/2023
28.1) The petitioner claims to be working as an Assistant
Professor against the sanctioned post in the discipline of
Civil Engineering in the respondent University on
contractual/academic arrangement basis. She has laid
challenge to advertisement notice dated 31.01.2023,
whereby applications for engagement of contractual
Lecturers for the academic Sessions 2023 in the discipline
in which she is presently working.
28.2) In view of the legal position discussed hereinbefore,
the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents not to replace the petitioner with a similar
arrangement till such time regular selection to the post,
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 23 of 45
which the petitioner is holding, is made in accordance with
the relevant Recruitment Rules. The respondents shall,
however, be at liberty to dispense with the services of the
petitioner on the ground of non-performance or on
disciplinary grounds.
29) WP(C) No.283/2023
29.1) The petitioner claims to be working as a Contractual
Lecturer in the Department of Law, University of Kashmir,
since the year 2022. She has, besides seeking a direction
upon the respondents not to replace her with a similar
arrangement, sought regularization of her services.
29.2) The relief of regularization claimed by the petitioner,
being a “service matter” as defined under Section 2(q) of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, is cognizable by Central
Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition is
transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Srinagar, for its disposal in accordance with law. Till such
time the matter is considered by the Tribunal, the interim
order passed by this Court on 15.02.2023 shall remain in
operation.
29.3) The Registry shall transmit the record of this petition
to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar, where the
parties shall appear on 04.08.2025.
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 24 of 45
30) WP(C) No.362/2023
30.1) Initially this writ petition was filed by four writ
petitioners but later on, two of the writ petitioners withdrew
the writ petition and presently it is confined to petitioners
Dr. Ashaq Hussain and Dr. Baseerat Hamza only. They
claim to be working as Lecturers in various disciplines with
the respondent University since the year 2022. The
petitioners have laid challenge to advertisement notice
dated 31.01.2023 to the extent of their disciplines, whereby
applications have been invited for engagement of
contractual Lecturers for the academic Sessions 2023.
30.2) In view of the legal position discussed hereinbefore,
the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents not to replace the petitioners with a similar
arrangement till such time regular selection to the posts,
which the petitioners are holding, is made in accordance
with the relevant Recruitment Rules. The respondents
shall, however, be at liberty to dispense with the services of
the petitioners on the ground of non-performance or on
disciplinary grounds.
31) WP(C) No.129/2023
31.1) The petitioners claim to be working as contractual
Lecturers on academic arrangement basis with the
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 25 of 45
respondent University in various disciplines since the year
2022. They have sought a direction upon the respondents
to allow them to continue as contractual Lecturers and not
to replace them by another set of contractual engagees.
31.2) In view of the legal position discussed hereinbefore,
the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents not to replace the petitioners with a similar
arrangement till such time regular selection to the posts,
which the petitioners are holding, is made in accordance
with the relevant Recruitment Rules. The respondents
shall, however, be at liberty to dispense with the services of
the petitioners on the ground of non-performance or on
disciplinary grounds.
32) WP(C) Nos.3132/2023 & 543/2025
CCP(S) No.49/2024
32.1) The petitioners claim to be working as Instructors on
contractual basis in the discipline of Sculpture, Art History
and Applied Art with the respondent University for the last
several years against sanctioned posts.
32.2) Vide writ petition bearing WP(C) No.3132/2023, the
petitioners have sought a direction upon the respondents
not to initiate fresh selection process for the engagement of
contractual Lecturers in the aforesaid disciplines whereas
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 26 of 45
vide writ petition bearing WP(C) No.543/2025, they have
laid challenge to advertisement notice dated 05.02.2025
issued by the respondent University, whereby applications
have been invited for engagement of contractual Assistant
Instructors/Instructors on academic arrangement basis for
Session 2025 in the disciplines in which the petitioners are
working.
32.3) In view of the legal position discussed hereinbefore,
both the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to
the respondents not to replace the petitioners with a similar
arrangement till such time regular selection to the posts,
which the petitioners are holding, is made in accordance
with the relevant Recruitment Rules. The respondents
shall, however, be at liberty to dispense with the services of
the petitioner on the ground of non-performance or on
disciplinary grounds.
32.4) Since the main writ petition(s) stand already disposed
of, as such, the interim orders out of which contempt
petition bearing CCP(S) No.49/2024 has arisen, have
merged with the final order. The contempt proceedings,
therefore, do not survive for any further consideration and
the same are, accordingly, closed. The contempt petition
shall stand disposed of.
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 27 of 45
33) WP(C) No.731/2022
WP(C) No.706/2023
33.1) The petitioner claims to be working as Lecturer on
contractual basis in the discipline of Arabic in the
respondent University since the year 2017.
33.2) Vide writ petition bearing WP(C) No.731/2022, the
petitioner has sought a direction upon the respondents that
she should not be disengaged till such time the post held
by her is filled up in accordance with rules on substantive
basis. Vide writ petition bearing WP(C) No.706/2023, the
petitioner has laid challenge to advertisement notice dated
31.01.2023 issued by the respondent University, whereby
applications have been invited for engagement of
contractual Lecturers for academic Sessions 2023 in the
discipline in which the petitioner is working.
33.3) In view of the legal position discussed hereinbefore,
both these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to
the respondents not to replace the petitioner with a similar
arrangement till such time regular selection to the post,
which the petitioner is holding, is made in accordance with
the relevant Recruitment Rules. The respondents shall,
however, be at liberty to dispense with the services of the
petitioner on the ground of non-performance or on
disciplinary grounds.
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 28 of 45
34) WP(C) No.321/2023
WP(C) No.126/2024
WP(C) No.527/2025
34.1) WP(C) No.321/2023 has been filed by Aaqib Hussain,
who claims to be working as a contractual Lecturer in the
Department of Computer Science Engineering since the
year 2022.
34.2) WP(C) No.126/2024 had been initially filed by above
named Aaqib Hussain and eight more writ petitioners, out
of whom two writ petitioners, namely, Ishfaq Ahmad Dar
and Waseem Gulzar, have withdrawn the writ petition. The
writ petition is being now prosecuted by petitioners,
namely, Aaqib Hussain, Dr. Ashaq Hussain Sofi, Dr.
Baseerat Hamza, Sania Qadri, Dr. Kaleem Ahmad Najar,
Dr. Arjumand Rasool and Naiyara Khan. They claim to be
working as contractual Lecturers against the sanctioned
posts in the discipline of Mechanical Engineering, Physics,
Mathematics, Chemistry and Civil Engineering.
34.3) WP(C) No.527/2025 has been filed by Aaqib Hussain,
Dr. Ashaq Hussain Sofi, Dr. Baseerat Hamza, Sania Qadri,
Dr. Kaleem Ahmad Najar, Dr. Arjumand Rasool and
Naiyara Khan. By virtue of the said writ petition, they have
challenged advertisement notice dated 09.01.2025 issued
by the respondent University, whereby applications have
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 29 of 45
been invited for engagement of contractual Assistant
Professors for academic Session 2025 in the disciplines in
which the petitioners are stated to be worked.
34.4) In view of the legal position discussed hereinbefore,
all these three writ petitions are disposed of with a direction
to the respondents not to replace the petitioners with a
similar arrangement till such time regular selection to the
posts, which the petitioners are holding, is made in
accordance with the relevant Recruitment Rules. The
respondents shall, however, be at liberty to dispense with
the services of the petitioners on the ground of non-
performance or on disciplinary grounds.
35) WP(C) No.269/2023,
WP(C) No.621/2024
CCP(S) No.206/2024
35.1) WP(C) No.269/2023 has been filed by Dr. Rukhsana
Rahim whereas WP(C) No.621/2024 has been filed by Dr.
Rukhsana Rahim and Dr. Mohammad Amin Meer.
Petitioner Dr. Rukhsana Rahim claims that she is serving
on academic basis on the position of Urdu Lecturer in Iqbal
Institute of Culture & Philosophy for the last three
consecutive years whereas petitioner Dr. Mohammad Amin
Meer has also claimed that he is working as a contractual
Lecturer in the aforesaid discipline with the respondent
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 30 of 45
University since the year 2022. They have laid challenge to
advertisement notices issued by the respondent University
whereby applications have been invited for engagement of
Lecturers on contractual basis for the academic Session
2023 and academic Sessions 2024, on the grounds that it
is not open to the respondents to replace the petitioners
with a similar arrangement and also on the ground that the
desirable qualification/specialization prescribed by the
respondent University in respect of the discipline of Iqbal
Institute of Culture and Philosophy is not in accordance
with the requirements of the job.
35.2) Since these writ petitions involve determination of an
additional issue, therefore, the same are directed to be
delinked for their separate consideration. It is, however,
provided that the interim orders passed in the writ petitions
shall continue till next date of hearing.
35.3) List along with WP(C) No.608/2023 on 25.08.2025.
36) WP(C) Nos.322/2023
WP(C) No.3290/2023
WP(C) No.169/2024
WP(C) No.2983/2024
CCP(S) Nos.62/2024 & 88/2025
36.1) The petitioners in these writ petitions claim to be
working as contractual Lecturers on academic
arrangement basis in the Department of Law/School of
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 31 of 45
Law, University of Kashmir, for the last more than five
years.
36.2) Vide WP(C) No.322/2023, the petitioners have
challenged advertisement notice dated 31.01.2023,
whereby the respondent University has invited applications
for engagement of contractual Lecturers on academic
arrangement basis for the Session 2023 for 12 positions in
School of Law. Vide WP(C) No.3290/2023, the petitioners
have challenged communication dated 8th December, 2023,
whereby, in response to their joint representation, the
respondent University has informed them that the
engagement of contractual Lecturers working on Court
directions would be governed by the terms and conditions
as envisaged in their previous engagement orders. Vide
WP(C) No.169/2024, the petitioners have laid challenge to
advertisement notice dated 05.01.2024 whereby the
respondent University has invited applications for
engagement of contractual lecturers on academic
arrangement basis for the Session 2024 in respect of
various subjects in the School of Law. Vide WP(C)
No.2983/2024, the petitioners have challenged order dated
27th May, 2024, issued by the respondent University,
wherein it has been provided that order dated 29.03.2024
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 32 of 45
issued in favour of nine contractual Lecturers in
Department of Law shall be valid upto to the end of
academic Session, 2024 or till the interim orders passed in
the matter are vacated/modified by the High Court,
whichever is earlier.
36.3) So far as the legal position as regards the
permissibility of replacing the teaching faculty of an
educational institution engaged on contractual basis or
academic arrangement basis by a similar arrangement is
concerned, the same, as already discussed hereinbefore, is
beyond any cavil, inasmuch it is not permissible for an
institute to resort to hire and fire policy and to replace
contractual/temporary arrangement by a similar
arrangement. The replacement can only be resorted
through regularly appointed staff/teaching faculty.
However, in the present case, the affidavits filed by the
respondent University raise additional issues which are
required to be dealt with separately.
36.4) It has been contended by the respondent
University that they have invited applications for vacant
posts of Assistant Professors and have almost culminated
the process of filling up these vacant posts on substantive
basis, therefore, the respondent University cannot be forced
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 33 of 45
to continue with the engagement of the petitioners whose
terms of engagement are strictly governed by the terms and
conditions laid down in the advertisement notice(s)
pursuant to which they had submitted their applications.
In the affidavit filed by the respondent University, it has
been submitted that the last regular appointments were
made in the year 2017 and the process of regular
appointments did not take place until issuance of
notification dated 19.12.2023, in terms whereof the vacant
positions in various subjects including the subjects of the
petitioners were put to advertisement. It has been
submitted that in view of the appointment of Assistant
Professor in various faculties on permanent basis, there is
no need for contractual engagements on academic
arrangement basis in the faculties of Law, Urdu, Arabic,
Zoology and Institute of Culture & Philosophy. It has been
submitted that the sanctioned strength of Assistant
Professors is 354 and at present, 288 posts of Assistant
Professors have been filled up whereas the process for filling
up of 66 posts has been initiated. It has been further
contended that even the petitioners herein have
participated in the selection process initiated for filling up
the posts on substantive basis.
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 34 of 45
36.5) Regarding the faculty of Law, the respondent
University has taken a stand that it is drawing faculty from
other departments for teaching law and non-law subjects
which has been the practice adopted by the University so
as to encourage inter-departmental faculty exchange for
teaching inter-disciplinary subjects. It has been further
submitted that the School of Law has an understanding
with the School of Legal Studies, Central University of
Kashmir and, therefore, a consistent practice of faculty
exchange is being followed.
36.6) According to the respondent University, Dr. Hilal
Ahmad Najar and Dr. Mudasir are serving as Senior
Assistant Professor and Assistant Professor in the School of
Legal Studies, Central University, Kashmir, and their
services are being engaged in consonance with the
understanding with the Central University of Kashmir.
Similarly, services of Professor Mushtaq Ahmad Dar, who
is teaching in the Department of Distance Education,
University of Kashmir, are also being utilized. Besides this,
the respondent University has submitted that in the past,
the Department of Law had intake of more than 120
students for each programme of BA. LL.B and LL.B since
2017 batch onwards and now the student intake has been
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 35 of 45
reduced to about 65 students for each programme. It has
been submitted that it is not necessary for introduction of
every new course that a faculty ought to be sanctioned for
it prior to the introduction. It has been further submitted
that there are a number of courses being run within each
department of the University where the faculty is drawn not
only from the parent department but from other allied
disciplines also to engage classes.
36.7) On the basis of the affidavits filed by the
respondent University, it is being contended that it is not
necessary for the respondent University to continue with
the contractual engagement of the petitioners once the
vacant posts in the Department have been filled up on
substantive basis and the shortfall, if any, is taken care by
visiting/guest lecturers from other departments/
universities.
36.8) If we have a look at advertisement notice dated
19th December, 2023 so far as it relates to the Law
Department, it is revealed that 03 posts of Assistant
Professors have been advertised. The process of selection is
stated to be at the final stage. If we have a look at the
advertisement notice issued by the respondent University
for the Department of Law for the academic Sessions 2023,
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 36 of 45
12 positions of contractual Lecturers were advertised,
meaning thereby that in the year 2023, there was a
requirement of 12 Lecturers in the Department of Law. It is
the case of the respondent University that since the year
2017 uptill the year 2023, no advertisement notices were
issued for filling up the posts of Assistant Professors on
substantive basis, meaning thereby that the requirement of
faculty at the time of issuance of advertisement notice in
the year 2023 for filling up the posts on contractual basis
was similar to the one as at the time of initiation of process
of selection on substantive basis in December, 2023. In
other words, there was requirement of 12 faculty members
in the Law Department but the selection process on
substantive basis is going on only in respect of three posts
leaving a shortfall of nine teachers/lecturers. The
respondent University, it seems, is trying to makeup this
shortfall in the faculty by getting guest/visiting lecturers
from other departments and other universities. The
question arises as to whether such a methodology that is
being adopted by the respondent University is, in any
manner, going to benefit the student community and
whether the same is permissible in law.
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 37 of 45
36.9) In order to find answer to the aforesaid question,
it has to be noted that the Bar Council of India has issued
Rules of Legal Education, 2008, for prescribing standards
of legal education and recognition of degrees in law for the
purposes of enrolment as advocates. It lays down guidelines
with regard to academic infrastructure of institutes
imparting education in law. The rules which are relevant to
the context are reproduced hereinbelow:
15. Minimum Library requirement: To start with, a Law
Library shall have a set of AIR manual, Central Acts and
Local Acts, Criminal law journal, SCC, Company cases,
Indian Bar Review, selected Judgements on
Professional Ethics and Journals with the back volumes
for at least ten years and also such number of text books
in each subjects taught during the period according to
the minimum standard ratio of ten books for each
registered students. For running integrated program,
text books of such other subjects are also to be kept in
the similar minimum ratio. The minimum investment in
Library in each academic year must shall be Rupees
Fifty thousand for one stream and Rupees One Lakh for
both the streams.
16 Whole time Principal/ Head/Dean: There shall be a
Principal for each constituent or affiliated Centre of
Legal Education of a University and a Dean for the
University Department, who shall have minimum
prescribed qualification in law as prescribed by the
UGC for respective position like Principal of a Centre of
Legal Education or a Professor of Law to hold Deanship,
as the case may be.
17. Core Faculty: There shall be sufficient number of
full time faculty members in each Centre of Legal
Education (i.e., Department, constituent or affiliated
college) to teach each subject at all point of time for
running courses who can be supported by part time or
visiting faculty. Such a core faculty shall in no case be
less than six in the first year of the approval with both
streams in operation, eight in the second year and ten in
the case of third year of law courses. In addition, for the
integrated course there shall be adequate faculty in the
subjects offered in the liberal educational subjects asWP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 38 of 45
part of the course by the institution. These faculties in
the liberal educational discipline in Arts, Science,
Management, Commerce, Engineering, Technology or
any other discipline shall possess qualification as is
required under the UGC guideline or under such other
standard setting body as the discipline is allotted to by
any Act, statute, or Rules of the Government of India or
of a State.
For the Three Year Bachelor of Law degree course only
with two sections without the Honour program, there
shall be minimum of 4 core faculty in the first year six in
the second and eight in the third year in addition to the
Principal/Head or Dean as the case may be.
Provided that an institution intending to run any
specialized or honours course must have at least three
faculty in the group in which specialization and honours
courses are offered.
Provided further that each full time faculty shall take as
many classes in the subject or subjects as may be
assigned to them on the basis of standard prescribed by
‘the standard setting institution’ like UGC.
Provided further, if any institution of a University, which
was already affiliated to the University and approved to
run professional courses of either scheme or both by
the Bar Council of India after inspection of the
University, falls short of required full time faculty, the
new admission in courses may be required to remain
suspended until new required number of faculty is
procured. The University shall before starting a new
academic session, notify which institutions are only be
allowed to admit fresh students.
Provided further that if while inspecting the University it
was found that in any institution of the University
adequate number of full time faculty was not there in
the staff, the Bar Council after giving notice to the
University might give a public notice directing the
University not to admit students in the new academic
year in that institution.
36.10) From the perusal of aforesaid Rules, it is clear
that an institute imparting education in law has to have a
minimum library as prescribed in Rule 15. It has to be
headed by a whole time Principal/Head/Dean having a
minimum prescribed qualification in law as laid down by
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 39 of 45
the UGC. As per Rule 17, there has to be full-time faculty
members in each Centre of Legal Education to teach each
subject at all point of time for running courses who can be
supported by part time or visiting faculty. Such a core
faculty, in no case, can be less than six in the first year of
the approval with both streams in operation, eight in the
second year and ten in case of third year of law courses. In
addition to this, in the case of integrated course, there has
to be an adequate faculty in the subjects offered as part of
the course by the institution. It is also provided that for
three-year Bachelors Law degree course only with two
sections, there has to be a minimum of four core faculty in
the first year, six in the second and eight in the third year
in addition to the Principal/Head or Dean.
36.11) In the instant case, if we have a look at the
documents produced by the respondent University, there is
a sanctioned strength of 14 Assistant Professors, 03
Associated Professors and 01 Professor in the Department
of Law, out of which only 13 Assistant Professors are
presently in place leaving a vacancy of 05 posts. The
respondent University is running three years LLB course as
well as five years integrated BA. LLB course. Besides this,
the respondent University is also running the course of LLM
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 40 of 45
and PhD courses. The intake capacity for BA. LLB five-year
course is 120 seats, the intake capacity in LLB three years
course is 120 seats, intake capacity in LLB Supplementary
shift is 66 seats and the intake capacity in LLM course is
24 seats.
36.12) In the face of the standards prescribed by Bar
Council of India, as per the Rules of Legal Education, 2008,
it is well neigh impossible for the respondent University to
cater to the needs of student community with a teaching
faculty of 13 people. It appears that it is for this reason that
the respondent University has been engaging the faculty on
contractual basis from time to time. It also appears that the
respondent University has not till date created sufficient
number of permanent posts so as to provide a permanent
faculty to the student community which has compelled
them to resort to contractual engagements on academic
arrangement basis.
36.13) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent University has submitted that there is a
difference between ‘position’ and a ‘post’. On this basis, it
has been contended that while a contractual employee can
be allowed to continue till a post is filled up on substantive
basis but a contractual appointee cannot be allowed to
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 41 of 45
continue if there is no substantive post in existence. It is
being contended that because there are no vacant posts
available in the Law Department, as such, the contractual
engagement of the petitioners cannot be continued.
36.14) There can be no quarrel with the proposition of
law that in service jurisprudence the terms “post” and
“position” carry distinct legal and functional meaning. A
“post” refers to a sanctioned cadre created by the competent
authority and it has a designated pay scale, rank and
duties. A “post” exists independent of the person who holds
it. However, a “position” does not necessarily have a legal or
sanctioned existence. A person may hold a position without
holding a substantive post. Nonetheless, a position created
for a specific purpose or period is based on the requirement
of an employer. The fact that respondent University had
advertised 12 positions of contractual Lecturers in the year
2023 means that there was requirement of 12 faculty
members out of which, at best, the respondent University
may have filled up three posts but still then, there is
shortfall in the faculty of the respondent University so far
as the Department of Law is concerned.
36.15) Having regard to the number of law courses
which the respondent University is running and keeping in
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 42 of 45
view the intake capacity in such courses, it is imperative for
the University to create a core faculty in accordance with
the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. It is not a happy
situation that the respondent University is running the
show with ad hocism by engaging Lecturers on academic
arrangement basis. It seems that they want to perpetuate
this situation by getting visiting/guest lecturers from other
Universities and other departments so as to avoid
continuing the services of the petitioners. The respondent
University, as already stated, cannot deny the fact that
there is requirement of faculty in the Department of Law
having regard to the number of courses which they are
running and having regard to the huge intake capacity of
students in these courses.
36.16) The action of the respondents in disengaging the
services of the petitioners and replacing them by ad hoc
arrangements like visiting lecturers and guest lecturers is
nothing but a malafide exercise of power. By doing so, the
respondent University intends to do away with the service
contracts of the petitioners but in the process, they are also
doing a great disservice to the students’ community who are
being left to the mercy of guest/visiting lecturers without
there being any continuity. Instead of creating a core
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 43 of 45
faculty, as envisaged under Rule 17 of the Rules of Legal
Education, 2008, the respondent University, it seems, is
resorting to hire and fire policy which is detrimental to the
interests of not only the petitioners but also to the larger
interests of the student community.
36.17) In view of the aforesaid reasons, continuation of
the contractual engagement of the petitioners who have by
now gained sufficient experience, till such time a core
faculty is created and put in place, would be in the interests
of the student community. The same would also be in tune
with the legal position that one ad hoc/temporary
arrangement cannot be replaced by another arrangement of
similar nature. This Court is of the view that dispensing
with the engagement of the petitioners and replacing them
with visiting/guest lecturers would amount to perpetuating
ad hocism and indirectly doing an act which is
impermissible in law.
36.18) Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and
the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to
continue as contractual Lecturers in the Department of Law
till such time the respondents create and put in place a core
faculty for imparting education to the students in the
Department of Law. However, the respondent University is
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 44 of 45
at liberty to dispense with the engagement of the petitioners
on the grounds of non-performance or on disciplinary
grounds.
36.19) Since the main writ petition(s) stand already
disposed of, as such, the interim orders out of which the
contempt petitions bearing CCP(S) Nos.62/2024 CCP(S)
No.88/2025 have arisen, have merged with the final order.
The contempt proceedings, therefore, do not survive for any
further consideration and the same are, accordingly,
closed. The contempt petitions shall stand disposed of.
24) Copies of this judgment be placed on each file.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar,
04.07.2025
“Bhat Altaf”
Whether the order is reportable: YES/NO
WP(C) No.708/2023 along with
connected matters Page No. 45 of 45