Ad-hoc employee can be replaced only by regular employee and not another ad-hoc employee: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that an ad-hoc employee can be replaced by only a regular employee who is appointed following the procedure prescribed and not by another ad-hoc employee [Manish Gupta and Another v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and Others].."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 top court was hearing an appeal assailing the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court with regard to the appointment of teachers.The appellants in the present case were appointed as guest faculty teachers in government colleges on a contractual basis under the 'Jan Bhagidari Scheme' of the State of Madhya Pradesh. After the end of the academic year, the service of the appellants were discontinued and fresh advertisements for the said position were issued.Aggrieved, the appellants approached the High Court and a single-judge allowed the plea, directing the respondent authority to let the appellants continue in their respective posts till regular appointments are made.The respondents then filed an appeal before approached the division bench of the High Court, which had set aside the order of the single-judge.The appellants the moved the apex court by way of the present appeal..The Supreme Court noted that though the respondents have strenuously urged 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 an ad-hoc basis.To hold the above, reliance was placed by the Bench on its decisions in Rattan Lal and Others v. State of Haryana (1985) and Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2007).Therefore, the top court found no error in the single-judge's decision to allow the appellants to continue in their respective posts till the regular appointments are made.However, the Court made it clear that the direction of the single-judge stating that the appellants would be entitled to get the salary in accordance with the UGC circular is not sustainable since the advertisements clearly provided that the selected candidates would be paid the honorarium to be determined by the Jan Bhagidari Committee.Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed..Senior Advocate Rana Mukherjee argued on behalf of the appellants.Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj represented the respondents..[Read Judgment]