In a significant judgment reflecting judicial concern over the functioning of higher education institutions, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court strongly criticized the University of Kashmir for its arbitrary and inconsistent approach in dealing with the appointment and continuation of contractual lecturers in its Department of Law. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar, addressed a challenge filed by a group of contractual lecturers who were abruptly excluded from teaching roles despite having served the University for several academic sessions. The petitioners contended that their disengagement lacked justification, especially considering the University’s continuing requirement for faculty in the law department.
The Court’s scrutiny revealed a disturbing pattern in the University’s administrative practices. The University had issued an advertisement in 2023 for twelve contractual lecturer posts in the Department of Law. However, it only filled three of those posts and ignored the remaining vacancies. Instead of completing the contractual appointments, the University opted to hire guest or visiting faculty. The Court viewed this as a deliberate attempt to bypass long-serving contractual teachers who had proven their ability over the years. Justice Dhar observed that the hiring and discontinuation pattern reflected a “hire and fire” policy devoid of transparency or fairness. It also indicated the University’s tendency to circumvent regulatory norms while pretending to fulfill academic obligations.
At the center of the Court’s analysis was the Bar Council of India’s Legal Education Rules, particularly Rule 17, which mandates that institutions offering legal education must maintain a qualified and stable core faculty. The High Court noted that academic continuity is essential in any educational institution, more so in a law department, where the nature of teaching involves building a foundational understanding of legal reasoning over sustained engagement. The practice of replacing entire batches of lecturers annually or session-wise, without due process or cause, was criticized for being disruptive to both faculty and students. The Court stated that a student’s ability to grasp legal concepts and develop analytical skills is closely tied to the consistency of mentorship, which cannot be achieved when faculty appointments are made on a temporary, rotating basis.
The judgment made a critical distinction between “posts” and “positions.” The University attempted to justify its actions by arguing that the contractual lecturers were appointed on temporary positions and therefore had no right to continuation. However, the Court clarified that what the University termed as positions were, in fact, sanctioned posts for which there was a clear and continuing need. The issuance of an advertisement inviting applications for twelve posts itself was an admission that these were not occasional requirements but essential to the functioning of the Department. Therefore, the University had a duty to fill these posts through fair and transparent processes, rather than resorting to ad hoc guest faculty appointments that undermine academic quality and institutional accountability.
Moreover, the Court expressed concern over the administrative tendency to dismiss the contribution of contractual lecturers, even when their performance was satisfactory and no adverse remarks were recorded. Justice Dhar underscored that continuation of such lecturers should not be treated as a matter of convenience but rather as a part of the institution’s responsibility to ensure academic excellence and institutional stability. The casual manner in which experienced lecturers were sidelined, and lesser-qualified visiting faculty were appointed instead, revealed not only administrative arbitrariness but also a disregard for the value of experienced educators.
The judgment further emphasized that the rights of contractual teachers cannot be completely at the mercy of the university's whims. While their appointments might be for a limited period, the nature of their engagement, and the continuity of their service, create a legitimate expectation of fair treatment and reappointment, particularly when their services are still required and their performance has not been questioned. The Court thus held that denying continuation to such lecturers and replacing them with fresh appointees without reason amounts to unjust and unreasonable treatment, potentially violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and non-discrimination in public employment.
In its concluding observations, the Court directed that all contractual lecturers who had served in the Department of Law and had not been found unfit or unsuitable must be allowed to continue in their posts until a permanent faculty is recruited as per the rules. The University was permitted to terminate their services only in cases of non-performance or proven misconduct, and not as a result of arbitrary administrative policies. The Court also warned the University against using guest or visiting faculty appointments as a tool to evade compliance with proper recruitment procedures. It stated that reliance on guest faculty cannot be a substitute for fulfilling sanctioned faculty requirements, especially when the educational integrity of an entire department is at stake.
The implications of this judgment are multi-layered. On one hand, it restores professional dignity and temporary job security to a group of contractual lecturers who were treated unfairly despite their years of service. On the other hand, it serves as a wake-up call to educational institutions, particularly publicly funded universities, to respect the value of academic continuity and faculty welfare. The judgment reiterates that teaching is not a temporary function that can be outsourced through guest lectures or last-minute contractual arrangements. It is a long-term commitment that requires structural planning, policy consistency, and institutional responsibility.
This decision also highlights the important role of the judiciary in protecting the rights of those working in vulnerable employment conditions in academia. While permanent posts continue to be filled at a slow pace, many public universities have increasingly relied on temporary staff to meet their teaching obligations. This judgment makes it clear that such practices, when carried out without regard to law, fairness, and educational norms, will not be tolerated.
In essence, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court’s ruling sends a strong message that the quality of education and the rights of educators cannot be compromised through administrative shortcuts. It reiterates that universities must fulfill their regulatory and moral responsibilities towards both their staff and their students. By insisting on reasoned decision-making, proper adherence to rules, and the importance of core faculty in maintaining academic standards, the Court has reaffirmed the central place of fairness and stability in the realm of higher education.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.