Team  SoOLEGAL

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

Team SoOLEGAL 26 Apr 2022 10:14am

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

The Supreme Court recently ruled that an ad-hoc employee can only be replaced by a regular employee, who is hired following the procedure, not by another ad-hoc employee.

"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," a Division Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai observed.

The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision on teacher appointments.

The appellants, in this case, were hired as guest faculty in government colleges on a contract basis under the state of Madhya Pradesh's 'Jan Bhagidari Scheme.' The appellant's services were terminated at the end of the academic year, and new advertisements for the same position were published.

The appellants, who were dissatisfied, took their case to the High Court. They were granted relief by a Single Bench, which ordered that they be permitted to precede working on their respective positions until regular selections were made.

On the State's appeal, a Division Bench reversed the Single Bench decision. This urged the appellants to file a petition with the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has observed that, despite the State's vehement insistence that the appellants' appointments were as guest lecturers and not as ad hoc employees, the nature of the advertisements explicitly stated that the appellants were appointed on an ad hoc basis.

In this regard, the Supreme Court's decision in Rattan Lal and others vs. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 43, as well as the order in Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (2007) 13 SCC 292, were cited.

The Court, on the other hand, made it clear the direction of the single-judge stating that the appellants are entitled to a salary following the UGC circular is unsustainable because the advertisements clearly stated that the selected candidates would be paid an honorarium determined by the Jan Bhagidari Committee.

Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed.



Tagged: Supreme Court   Labor law     
Did you find this write up useful? YES 1 NO 0
Featured Members view all

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com