The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the reinstatement of a guest faculty member working in the Department of Development Studies, Panjab University, holding that a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee merely by changing the nomenclature of the post.

Allowing the petition filed by Rimpi, a guest faculty of the university since 2021, Justice Sandeep Moudgil on Monday set aside the March 9, 2024, relieving order and directed the authorities to reinstate her forthwith and continue her in service until regular recruitment is undertaken.

According to the petitioner, the institution issued another advertisement in May 2023 for contractual assistant professors. While the petitioner participated in the process, another contractual employee was appointed even before the results were declared.

The court also granted continuity of service, consequential benefits, and arrears of pay with 6 per cent annual interest.

The petitioner was appointed a guest faculty of Panjab University in 2021 after selection through a duly constituted selection committee and has continued teaching since December 4, 2021. She possessed qualifications, including MA, MPhil, NET qualification, and was pursuing a PhD from Panjab University. She also belongs to the physically disabled category with 48 per cent disability.

The petitioner challenged the relieving order, contending that she was being replaced despite there being a continuous requirement of work and no complaint regarding her functioning.

The petitioner argued that the action violated the law that one contractual employee cannot be replaced by another. It was also contended that despite discharging duties identical to regular assistant professors, she was paid a fixed remuneration of Rs 52,000 per month.

Petitioner not selected on merit: Panjab University

The respondents opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioner was only engaged as guest faculty on an 11-month contractual basis and had no vested right to continue. They further submitted that she had participated in a fresh selection process but was not selected on merit. The respondents also attempted to distinguish between the posts of “guest faculty” and “assistant professor (on contract)”.

Rejecting the stand of the respondents, the court held that the nature of work continued to exist and the institution had merely sought to replace one contractual employee with another.

Justice Moudgil observed that courts were required to examine the “true nature” of the action and not merely the terminology employed by the employer.

The court said the distinction sought to be drawn between “guest faculty” and “assistant professor (on contract)” did not merit acceptance because the petitioner continued to perform teaching functions in the same department, and the subsequent appointment was also for the same academic requirement.

‘Arbitrary hiring and firing policy’

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Rattan Lal versus State of Haryana, the High Court criticised the long-standing practice of keeping teachers on temporary appointments despite the continuous requirement of work. The court reproduced observations from the apex court describing such appointments as an “arbitrary hiring and firing policy” and noting that governments were expected to act as “model employers”.

The court also relied on State of Haryana versus Piara Singh and Hargurpratap Singh versus State of Punjab to reiterate that ad hoc arrangements should not continue indefinitely where the work is regular in nature, and that one set of contractual employees ordinarily cannot be replaced by another.

Justice Moudgil further held that merely incorporating clauses in a contract denying continuity in service did not permit the state to act arbitrarily. “Even a contractual employee is entitled to protection against arbitrary state action,” the court observed, while noting that the institution admittedly continued to require teaching faculty.

The court also expressed concern over the impact of repeated short-term contractual appointments on educational institutions.

It was observed that frequent replacement of teaching faculty affected not only employees but also the academic environment itself.

Rejecting objections regarding maintainability and territorial jurisdiction, the court held that the petitioner had discharged duties at Chandigarh and the consequences of the impugned order had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It further held that the existence of an arbitration clause was not an absolute bar where the action complained of was ex facie arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees.