The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that part-time or guest faculty cannot function as substitutes for full-time Assistant Professors in the Faculty of Law. The judgment follows a batch of intra-court appeals by the University of Kashmir against a writ court order that had restrained the University from replacing contractual or academic-arrangement lecturers with another cohort of similar temporary teachers, and directed continuation of those lecturers until regular appointments are made.
A Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, scrutinised the situation in the University’s Department of Law. The court observed that while the University may bring in part-time experts for specialised or newly introduced subjects, and may also invite visiting lecturers to deliver lectures on specific legal topics, such arrangements cannot replace the requirement for whole-time Assistant Professors who teach multiple subjects across different years of an integrated law programme.
The respondents in the case were lecturers engaged by the University on an academic-arrangement or contractual basis for individual academic sessions. Their services had been extended either by interim court orders or through administrative decisions. Each new academic year prompted the University to issue fresh advertisements for these temporary positions, resulting in the repeated termination of one batch and engagement of another under similar contractual terms. The lecturing staff, challenged by this cyclic replacement, had successfully sought relief in the writ court, which held that contractual lecturers should continue until the University regularly filled the posts and restrained the institution from substituting them with another round of contractual hires.
On appeal, the University countered that the contractual lecturers were not employed against regular, substantive posts and that its academic-arrangement faculty served only temporary, session-wise needs. The University argued that part-time or guest faculty members could be engaged, particularly for elective or new law subjects that the curriculum had recently introduced. It maintained that these guest positions were not intended to serve as permanent replacements for full-time teaching staff.
The High Court extensively reviewed the legal framework applicable to legal education, including the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, which prescribe core faculty requirements. The Court referred to jurisprudence that firmly establishes that contractual, ad hoc, or academic-arrangement employees should not be replaced by another batch of similarly temporary personnel when permanent recruitment is required. However, the Court also recognised that if the lecturers in question were not appointed to substantive posts, then it would be inappropriate to order their indefinite continuation. In other words, while the respondents were entitled to preference for future temporary engagements given their prior service, they did not automatically earn the right to permanent positions.
In its ruling, the Court partly upheld the writ court’s order, affirming that contractual or academic-arrangement lecturers should not be replaced by another set of contractual staff. At the same time, it modified the writ court’s directive by clarifying that the lecturers’ continuation is not guaranteed until substantive posts are filled, since they were not engaged against permanent positions. The Bench instructed that when the University requires temporary faculty, it should first offer these roles to the lecturers who have previously worked under academic arrangements and have relevant experience.
Furthermore, the High Court directed the University of Kashmir to place its judgment before the Bar Council of India, which is empowered to conduct inspections and ensure compliance with minimum faculty norms. The Court asked the Bar Council to inspect the Law Department of the University, to assess whether the required core faculty has been maintained for both three-year and five-year law courses, and to issue any necessary directions, including creating more regular teaching posts and regulating the use of temporary academic arrangements.
With these orders, the appeals were disposed of: the University is restrained from replacing its temporary lecturers with other similar contracts without first offering continuity to the existing lecturers, and it must secure standards of permanent faculty going forward, while following due procedure and complying with statutory norms for law education.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.