Treating Ad-Hoc Teachers As “Disposable Resources” Undermines Dignity Of Labour & Academic Excellence: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that frequent engagement and disengagement of Assistant Professors (APs) on adhoc basis disrupts academic planning and directly impairs the quality of education imparted to students, who are the ultimate stakeholders in the educational process.While dealing with a case where the petitioner— an Assistant Professor with over a decade of continuous service at Rayalaseema University (Respondent 1) challenged a circular of 2017 which sought to replace him with another contractual appointee without undertaking regular recruitment, Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam explained that adhoc teachers, who discharge duties identical to those of regular faculty against sanctioned posts, cannot be treated as “disposable resources, subjected to recurring insecurity of tenure and livelihood.”“Such a system not only undermines the dignity of labour and the right to livelihood but also erodes institutional memory and academic excellence. Our Indian Constitution mandates under Articles 14, 21 and 21- A that the State and its instrumentalities have to balance the right of students to quality and stable education with fair, non-arbitrary employment practices, ensuring that temporary arrangements do not become a permanent mode of administration at the cost of both educational standards and human dignity”, the Court added.The Single-Judge further emphasised that the responsibility of imparting education is not “an optional administrative exercise of the State, but a binding constitutional mandate” shaping the nation's future by virtue of the Right to Education under Article 21-A. “Education is not a mere administrative function of the State, but a constitutional obligation intimately connected with the future of the nation. Universities are temples of learning where continuity, academic stability and sustained teacher–student engagement are statutes for maintaining standards of higher education.” BackgroundIn his challenge to the 2017 Circular, the petitioner argued that he served as Assistant Professor for 11 years, despite the University not regularising his services and paying him on ad-hoc basis— which was lesser than salaries paid to regular employees, despite carrying out similar roles. He thus submitted that the Circular contravened his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16 and 21, and the settled principle that temporary employee cannot be substituted by another temporary employee.In contrast, the University maintained that the petitioner was appointed purely on ad-hoc basis to meet immediate academic needs, without undergoing regularisation procedure prescribed by UGC. It was further submitted that contractual appointments do not confer any vested right to continuation or regularisation.Against this backdrop, the Court explained that replacing an ad-hoc or contractual employee with another amounts to an abuse of the contractual system, as it perpetuates temporary employment for work of a permanent nature— thereby defeating the underlying object of regular appointment and undermining the principles of fairness and equality in public employment.“… when a contractual employee is engaged for a specific purpose or tenure under a defined agreement and does not form part of the permanent cadre, but, where the duties performed are perennial, continuous, and essential to the functioning of the establishment, the employer is under a legal obligation to fill such posts through regular and fair recruitment procedures.”The Court added,“The Court is of the considered view that contractual appointments may only operate as a temporary bridge until a regularly selected candidate is appointed. Once the need for the post is shown to be ongoing and essential, the employer cannot justify the continuation of contractual engagement by successive temporary appointments. Any replacement of a contractual employee must therefore be done by a duly selected regular employee, and not by another contractual or adhoc appointee. Permitting otherwise would allow the employer to indefinitely avoid regular recruitment, resulting in arbitrary employment practices and denying eligible candidates the opportunity to compete for regular appointment through proper channels, which cannot be sustained in law.”Allowing the writ petition, the Court directed that the petitioner would be entitled to continue in his respective post till the post is replaced by the permanent candidate.Case Details:Case Number: W.P.No.21904 of 2017Case Title: Dr. P.Nagaraju v. Rayalaseema UniversityClick Here To Read/Download Order

Treating Ad-Hoc Teachers As “Disposable Resources” Undermines Dignity Of Labour & Academic Excellence: AP High Court

Saahas Arora

Tags