Jammu, November 7: In a significant judgment reinforcing fairness and accountability in academic hiring, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has strongly criticised the University of Kashmir (KU) for its “hire and fire” policy in dealing with contractual law teachers. The court ruled that the university cannot simply dismiss one batch of ad hoc faculty members and recruit another set when the teaching requirement remains unchanged.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar issued the observations while deciding a series of Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) filed by KU, partly upholding and partly modifying an earlier order of a Single Judge that had protected the interests of law teachers engaged on an academic arrangement basis. The appeals stemmed from petitions filed by contractual faculty members, including Saba Manzoor, Noor Afshan, Mohd Ashraf, Naiyara Khan, and Danish Yaqoob, who were associated with the School of Law and other departments. These teachers were hired on a temporary academic arrangement and faced disengagement at the end of the session, as KU sought to bring in a new group of contractual instructors.
Reiterating well-established legal principles, the Division Bench held that ad hoc or temporary employees cannot be replaced by another set of temporary or contractual appointees. Such replacements, it stated, can only be made when a regularly selected candidate is appointed through proper recruitment procedures under the applicable rules. On this fundamental point, the court upheld the Single Judge’s directions, which restrained KU from replacing existing contractual teachers with new contractual hires if the academic need for teaching continued.
At the same time, the Bench introduced a degree of nuance in its ruling. It differentiated between faculty members appointed against clear, sanctioned posts and those brought in to supplement staff strength for a specific academic session or new course. The court observed that most of the petitioners were engaged as additional teaching support rather than against permanent vacancies. Hence, while they were entitled to protection from arbitrary removal and replacement, they could not claim a right to remain employed indefinitely or until regular recruitment occurred.
Importantly, the Division Bench directed that if KU continued to require academic arrangement or contractual staff, the university must first consider re-engaging existing teachers who already possess experience and familiarity with the department. Giving preference to such teachers, subject to merit and suitability, would serve institutional stability and enhance student learning outcomes.
The court issued a stern warning to the university against manipulative practices intended to bypass judicial or regulatory oversight. It specifically cautioned KU not to “circumvent” the court’s directions by changing the nomenclature of positions—for instance, reclassifying full-time contractual faculty as guest or part-time lecturers. The Bench clarified that guest or part-time faculty can only be engaged for specific lectures or papers, not as a replacement for core or whole-time contractual staff.
While upholding the protection against arbitrary replacement, the Bench clarified that the restriction applies only to departments with an ongoing teaching requirement where regular appointments have not yet been made. In cases where the need for academic arrangements has ended—such as completion of a short-term course or the discontinuation of a programme—the contractual faculty engaged for that period cannot insist on continued employment beyond their agreed term.
In a notable regulatory direction, the Division Bench ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Bar Council of India (BCI) for immediate action. The BCI has been instructed to conduct a comprehensive review of the University of Kashmir’s law faculty, assess the adequacy of its core teaching staff for both the three-year and five-year law programmes, and recommend the creation of additional permanent posts where necessary.
The Bench also directed the BCI to ensure that the university’s engagement of temporary faculty strictly follows the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, framed under the Advocates Act, 1961. The court emphasized that contractual or part-time teachers should only supplement, not substitute, the mandatory core faculty required for proper legal education.
#ContractualFacultyRights #AcademicEquity #UniversityOfKashmir #HigherEdJustice #FacultyJobSecurity #LawEducationStandards #EducationalGovernance #JandKNews