An Ad-hoc Employee Cannot Be Arbitrarily Replaced Without Justification: Gujarat High Court Questions Discriminatory Action Against Forensic Science Professor

In a significant ruling the Gujarat High Court directed the Rashtriya Raksha University to maintain status quo concerning the employment of Dr. Deepali Jain, whose contractual appointment as Assistant Professor (Forensic Science) was not renewed despite similarly placed colleagues being granted extensions. The Court, while issuing notice, held that the non-renewal appeared prima facie discriminatory and possibly an act of victimization.
Justice Nirzar S. Desai, hearing the Special Civil Application No. 969 of 2025, observed that "an ad-hoc employee cannot be arbitrarily replaced by another ad-hoc employee" and noted that the University failed to provide any formal justification for terminating Dr. Jain’s employment while retaining others in identical positions.
The petitioner had been working for the university on a 364-day contractual basis for the past three years, with her contract renewed multiple times. In December 2024, the University conducted interviews for the renewal of ad-hoc Assistant Professors, including Dr. Jain and two other faculty members. However, while the other two candidates had their contracts renewed, Dr. Jain’s contract was not extended, and no formal termination order was issued. The University claimed that the entire recruitment process was scrapped, yet failed to produce any official notification or justification for its decision.
Justice Desai noted, "If the recruitment process had been scrapped, it should have applied uniformly to all candidates. The fact that two other Assistant Professors were retained while the petitioner was excluded suggests a clear case of discrimination and arbitrary action."
The Court emphasized that "where a requirement for a post exists, and some contractual employees have been retained while others have been arbitrarily let go, such action amounts to unfair labor practice and discrimination." The judge further observed that "the respondents have neither issued a formal termination order nor provided any legal justification for treating the petitioner differently from her colleagues."
The Court referred to State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (1992) 4 SCC 118, reiterating that "a temporary or ad-hoc employee cannot be replaced by another temporary or ad-hoc employee without reasonable justification. If work exists, non-renewal without reasons amounts to arbitrary action." The ruling also cited Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715, emphasizing that public employment must adhere to principles of equality and fairness.

The High Court took note of a similar case, Brijeshkumar Sinha v. Vice Chancellor, Rashtriya Raksha University & Ors. (SCA No. 17531 of 2024), where status quo was granted to another professor in identical circumstances. Justice Desai ruled that Dr. Jain deserved the same interim protection, stating, "Since no formal order exists terminating the petitioner’s contract, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo concerning her employment, as if her contract has not been terminated."

With this ruling, the Gujarat High Court has sent a strong message that contractual employees cannot be selectively removed without justification, particularly when others in the same role are retained. The judgment reinforces protection against unfair labor practices and upholds the right to equality in public employment. The next hearing is scheduled for February 11, 2025.
 

Date of Decision: 28 January 2025