Introduction:
In the case University of Kashmir & Others v. Saba Manzoor & Others along with connected appeals, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh delivered a landmark judgment addressing the repeated replacement of contractual and academic-arrangement law teachers with fresh temporary faculty and clarified the permissible scope of guest or part-time faculty within law colleges. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar examined the legality of the University of Kashmir’s practice of discontinuing contractual lecturers at the end of each academic session and engaging another set of contractual faculty for the succeeding session, while also exploring the role of guest faculty in the Faculty of Law and the mandatory requirements under the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 issued by the Bar Council of India.
Arguments of the Appellants (University of Kashmir):
The University argued that the respondents were never appointed against substantive posts but were hired only on an academic arrangement or contractual basis for a specific academic session and therefore had no right to insist on continuation. The University further submitted that the nature of legal education, particularly in the five-year integrated law programme, requires the introduction of newer subjects, including interdisciplinary papers, for which part-time or guest faculty could legally be appointed. They contended that nothing prevents the University from appointing subject experts on a temporary basis and that the Writ Court’s order restraining the University from replacing the respondents with similarly situated contractual staff amounted to judicial overreach. They emphasized that the faculty requirement fluctuated each year based on admissions and course adjustments and that the respondents had no vested right to continuation or renewal of their engagement. The appellants also argued that the Writ Court had incorrectly applied the Supreme Court’s guidelines on ad hoc employees, as those principles apply only when temporary staff work against substantive vacancies—not when the University merely fills sessional teaching requirements. The University further contended that requiring them to continue all existing contractual lecturers would interfere with their autonomy and academic freedom, including their right to restructure the faculty composition based on need. They maintained that the employment was deliberately designed to be short-term because the University could not fill regular posts until approval from the Bar Council of India was received, and therefore renewal could not be claimed as a matter of right.
Arguments of the Respondents (Contractual/Academic Arrangement Lecturers):
The respondents argued that the University had been treating them unfairly by repeatedly terminating and reappointing new contractual lecturers despite adequate performance and despite the clear Supreme Court doctrine that contractual or ad hoc staff cannot be replaced by another set of contractual staff. They emphasized that although they were temporary, their work was continuous and essential because the University had not initiated regular recruitment for years. They submitted that the practice of repeatedly issuing fresh advertisements each session to bring in new contractual teachers was a way to circumvent judicial scrutiny and avoid creating regular posts, which was unlawful and exploitative. The respondents also argued that the University’s justification for hiring fresh contractual staff instead of continuing them was arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the principles of fairness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They submitted that their experience, performance, and contribution to the academic environment must be given due weight, especially in light of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, which require a minimum number of whole-time law teachers for each programme. The respondents argued that guest or part-time faculty cannot replace full-time teachers and that the University’s attempt to label teaching posts under different nomenclature was a deliberate attempt to escape responsibility for maintaining adequate full-time faculty strength. They urged the Court to uphold the Writ Court’s order directing continuation until the University completed regular recruitment and argued that the chaotic faculty approach compromised the quality of legal education.
Court’s Judgment:
The High Court extensively examined the regulatory framework governing legal education in India, particularly the minimum faculty requirements under the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, as well as the well-established principles governing the engagement and replacement of temporary employees. At the outset, the Bench reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s settled doctrine that a contractual or temporary employee cannot be replaced by another employee of the same category and may only be replaced by a regularly selected candidate. However, the Court clarified that this principle applies only when such temporary employment is against a substantive vacancy. In the present case, the Court noted that most of the respondents were engaged for temporary academic arrangements, not against sanctioned or substantive posts, and therefore the respondents could not demand continuation solely on the ground that fresh contractual advertisements were being issued. The Court emphasized that while temporary academic arrangements may be necessary, especially when the number of students rises sharply or new subjects are introduced, such arrangements must not become a tool to perpetually avoid filling regular posts or to replace one set of contractual teachers with another. The Bench made it clear that the University has the discretion to assess its faculty needs, but such assessment must be transparent, lawful, and in accordance with the norms of the Bar Council of India.
The Court also clarified the permissible role of guest faculty, stating that guest or part-time teachers could be engaged only for specialized subjects, newly introduced interdisciplinary topics, or occasional lectures—never as substitutes for whole-time Assistant Professors who are required to teach multiple subjects throughout the three-year and five-year law programmes. The Court sharply criticized any attempt to use guest faculty to bypass the requirement of regular full-time faculty, and held that while universities may use visiting experts, such appointments cannot be utilized to evade mandatory staffing standards.
On the issue of continuation of contractual teachers, the Court partly upheld and partly modified the findings of the Writ Court. It affirmed that contractual or academic arrangement lecturers cannot be replaced with another set of contractual lecturers, as the Supreme Court had consistently held. However, because the respondents were not working against substantive posts, the Court found it inappropriate to direct the University to continue them until regular recruitment took place. Instead, the Bench devised a balanced formula: if the University requires temporary teaching staff in future academic sessions, preference must first be granted to the respondents based on their prior performance and experience. This ensures fairness without forcing the University to continue contractual employees indefinitely.
The Bench further directed that the University must place this judgment before the Bar Council of India, which is legally responsible for ensuring compliance with core faculty requirements. The BCI must inspect the Department of Law, assess the required number of whole-time faculty members, determine the adequacy of existing staffing, and issue mandatory directions—including the creation of posts and regulation of temporary appointments. The Court highlighted that statutory bodies must ensure that legal education does not become dependent on ad hoc or makeshift faculty structures.
In conclusion, the Court disposed of the appeals by striking a balance between protecting contractual lecturers from arbitrary replacement and upholding the University’s academic autonomy. The judgment reinforces that guest faculty cannot be used as a substitute for full-time teachers of law, mandates lawful and fair temporary hiring practices, and calls for immediate regulatory oversight to secure the future of legal education at the University of Kashmir.