High Court restrained Kashmir University for replacing the adhoc academic arrangements with similar adhoc academic arrangements and directed the Varsity to allow the existing adhoc teaching staff till posts are filled on substantive basis.
Disposing of a batch of writ petition filed by a number of teaching faculty in different streams of the Varsity, Justice Sanjay Dhar has held that 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 is beyond any cavil and impermissible 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,” the High Court added.
The University, court added, is trying to make-up the 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.
“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 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”, Justice Dhar said.
The inaction on part of the varsity with regard to creation of sufficient number of permanent posts, the court said, 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.
“It is not a happy situation that the respondent University is running the show with adhocism 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 court observed.
The court recorded that the action of the respondent-University 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”, read the judgment.
“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 court said adding with “the same would also be in tune with the legal position that one adhoc/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 adhocism and indirectly doing an act which is impermissible in law,” Justice Dhar said. Daily Excelsior
