Ad Hoc Employee Can't Be Replaced By Another Ad Hoc Employee; Can Be Replaced Only By Regular Employee : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and can be replaced by only a regularly appointed candidate.

"It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed", the Court observed.

Reliance in this respect was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rattan Lal and others vs. State of Haryana(1985) 4 SCC 43 and others and on the order in the case of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (2007) 13 SCC 292.

A Bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai made this observation while considering appeals related to appointment of teachers in colleges in Madhya Pradesh.

The appellants were appointed as guest teachers on contractual basis under the "Jan Bhagidari Scheme" in Madhya Pradesh. After the end of the academic year, their services were terminated and a fresh notification was issued. Aggrieved with that, the appellants approached the High Court. A Single Bench granted them relief by directing that they should be allowed to continue to work on their respective posts till regular selections were made. The Single Bench direction was set aside by a Division Bench on State's appeal. This led the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court observed that even though it was strenuously urged by the State that the appointments of the appellants were as guest lecturers and not as ad hoc employees, from the nature of the advertisements, it could clearly be seen that the appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis.

Therefore, the court did not fine any error in single judge's direction directing the writ petitioners to continue to work on their respective posts till regular selections are made.

The Bench however held that the direction issued by the single judge of the High Court that the writ petitioners would be entitled to get the salary in accordance with the UGC circular is not sustainable, as the advertisements clearly provided that the selected candidates would be paid the honorarium to be determined by the Jan Bhaghidari Committee.

The Court has held that the­ appellants would be entitled to continue on their respective posts till they are replaced by regularly selected candidate.

Further, they would be entitled to honorarium at the rate of Rs.1,000/­ per hour as is being paid to them presently.

Case Title : Manish Gupta and another versus Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others | 

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 406

Appearances : Senior Advocate Rana Mukherjee for appellants; Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj for respondents

Service Law - It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed- Para 12-

Relied on -Rattan Lal and others vs. State of Haryana(1985) 4 SCC 43; Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (2007) 13 SCC 292.

Click here to read/download the order