Unfortunate Teachers Are Made To Fight For Their Service, Endeavour Should Be Made To Appoint Them On Regular Basis Instead Of Ad-Hoc: P&H High Court

Expressing concern over rising number of cases relating to appointment of teachers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that it is unfortunate that teachers, who are nation builders are fighting on roads or courts for their rights.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "a number of petitions are coming up before this Court on account of contractual, ad hoc or temporary appointment of teaching staff by respondent. Education is foundation of every country and teachers play vital role in nation building. It is unfortunate that teachers not only of respondent organization but of States are fighting on roads or in the courts either for their appointment or terms and conditions of service. The respondent ought to make appointments on regular basis and avoid appointment on contract, temporary and ad-hoc basis."

The Court also said that State should make endeavour "to appoint staff on regular basis and avoid appointment on temporary, ad hoc or contract basis because these appointments are made without following prescribed procedure and entail backdoor entry."

These observations were made in response to the plea filed by one Ruby Chauhan, who was a Ph.D scholar and a teacher appointed on temporary basis in a deemed university under National Institute of Technology. Chauhan challenged the university's order whereby she was relieved from the service.

After hearing the submissions the Court considered the issue, "whether petitioner can claim continuity of service?"

Referring to National Institutes of Technology, Science, Education and Research Act, 2007, the Court noted that, "normal rule of appointment of teaching staff is appointment on permanent basis, however, in special circumstances, the Board notwithstanding anything contained in statutes may make appointment of eminent person on contract for a maximum 5 years period and subject to the provisions of the Act, on contract for a period not exceeding 3 years basis. For the purpose of appointment on permanent basis, a Selection Committee consisting of Chairman and 4 Members is constituted. The appointment of teaching staff on contract basis can be made by ad hoc Selection Committee."

Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner indirectly was claiming that despite her being appointed on contract or lecture basis should not be relieved and should be permitted to continue.

"It is respondent (University) who has to decide its need. The respondent in the normal course, as observed above, cannot make appointment on ad hoc or temporary basis. The respondent in the wake of non-availability of teaching staff or any other reason, if at one point of time, has made appointment on temporary or lecture basis, it does not create right in favour of any candidate. He or she has no right to stall the process of appointment of teaching staff on regular basis," said the Court.

In then light of the above, the Court concluded that, "respondent has right to make appointment of Assistant Professor (Level 10 & 11) on permanent basis and petitioner has no right to claim continuity of service just because she was appointed to advert with an urgent situation."

While noting the Ministry of HRD guidelines, the judge also held that the petitioner cannot claim that no teaching load should be assigned to Ph.D. scholars. Assigning of teaching load to Ph.D. scholars is a matter of business between respondents and Ph.D. scholars. The petitioner has no locus standi to raise her finger to their arrangement.

Stating that it is "bereft of merit", the Court dismissed the plea.

 Title: RUBY CHAUHAN v. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 158

Tejpal Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.

A.S. Virk, Advocate for the respondent.

Click here to read/download the order