Part-Time Or Guest Faculty Cannot Substitute Full-Time Assistant Professors: J&K&L High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that part-time or guest faculty cannot be used as substitutes for whole-time Assistant Professors required to teach multiple subjects in the Faculty of Law.

The Court emphasised that while universities may engage part-time experts for specialised or newly introduced subjects, these arrangements cannot replace the necessity of whole-time faculty members.

The Court was hearing a batch of intra-court appeals filed by the University of Kashmir challenging a common judgment of the Writ Court, which had directed continuation of contractual or academic-arrangement lecturers until regular selections were made and restrained the University from replacing them with another set of contractual employees.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar examined the faculty requirements of the Department of Law, University of Kashmir, the scope of temporary engagement, and observed: “We find nothing wrong in the appellants inviting guest faculty to teach subjects other than law which are introduced in the five-year law course. Guest faculty can also be invited to deliver lectures on a particular subject or point of law. Such faculty, whether named as part-time or guest, cannot be a substitute for whole-time Assistant Professors required to teach multiple subjects to law students in different years of their course.”

The respondents were engaged by the University on an academic arrangement or a contractual basis for specific academic sessions. Their services were either extended by interim judicial orders or administrative decisions. Before every new academic session, the University issued fresh advertisements for temporary positions, resulting in repeated discontinuation and fresh engagement of lecturers.

Aggrieved by the University's move to replace them with similarly situated contractual teachers in subsequent sessions, the lecturers approached the Writ Court. The Writ Court held that contractual or ad hoc employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees and directed that the respondents be continued until regular recruitment.

The University challenged this decision, arguing that the respondents were not engaged against substantive posts, that annual hiring was session-based, and that part-time or guest faculty could be utilised for subjects introduced in the five-year law programme.

The Division Bench of the J&K and Ladakh High Court examined the legal principles governing the replacement of contractual employees and the statutory framework under the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. It noted the Supreme Court's settled position that an ad hoc, temporary or contractual employee should not be replaced by another similar employee, except by a regularly selected candidate.

The Bench, however, distinguished this principle where engagements are not against substantive posts, stating that “once it is found that the respondents, or for that matter, most of them, engaged on academic arrangement basis are not engaged against any substantive vacant posts, it would not be justified for the Court to direct the appellants to allow them to continue till the regular faculty is supplied by the appellants”.

The Court acknowledged that the Department of Law required additional faculty owing to increasing admissions and the introduction of new subjects. While the University may require temporary academic arrangements, the Court held, it cannot manipulate designations or nomenclature to bypass legal requirements or to replace existing contractual faculty unlawfully.

The Court, however, underscored that part-time or visiting faculty may be subject-matter experts who deliver lectures in specialised or non-law subjects. Guest faculty may also be invited for specific topics. However, whole-time Assistant Professors remain essential for core legal subjects across the LL.B. and integrated law programmes.

The Bench also noted that determining the exact faculty requirements of the Department of Law is the responsibility of the University and the Bar Council of India, which is mandated to undertake inspections and ensure compliance with minimum core faculty norms.

Consequently, the Court partly upheld and partly modified the Writ Court's directions. It affirmed that contractual or academic arrangement lecturers cannot be replaced by a similar contractual arrangement.

However, since the respondents were not engaged in substantive posts, the Court held that they cannot insist on continuation until regular posts are filled, and directed that if the University requires temporary faculty, preference must first be given to the respondents who have prior experience.

The Court also directed the University of Kashmir to place this judgment before the Bar Council of India, which shall immediately inspect the Law Department, assess the required core faculty for the three-year and five-year law courses, and issue necessary directions, including the creation of posts and regulating temporary teaching arrangements.

Accordingly, the appeals were disposed of.

Case Title: University of Kashmir & Others v. Saba Manzoor & Others; connected appeals

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment