The Gujarat High Court, while granting ad-interim relief, held that an ad-hoc employee could not be replaced with another ad-hoc employee and that the petitioner’s service termination without a formal order appeared arbitrary and unjustified.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, Dr. Deepali Jain, was serving as an Assistant Professor (Forensic Science) at the Rashtriya Raksha University on a 364-day contractual basis, which had been renewed from time to time. In December 2024, the University initiated a process to fill the same post for which the petitioner and two other similarly situated individuals were interviewed. However, only the contracts of the two other individuals were renewed, while the petitioner’s contract was not, and she was neither formally informed of non-renewal nor issued a termination order. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court, alleging unfair treatment and procedural irregularity.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the petitioner had been arbitrarily denied renewal of her contract while two similarly situated individuals had been retained. It was contended that there was no valid reason for her exclusion, and the absence of a formal termination order indicated a case of victimisation. Furthermore, the petitioner cited precedents that an ad-hoc employee cannot be replaced with another ad-hoc employee and that the entire recruitment process had not been formally scrapped, making her exclusion arbitrary.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents countered that the recruitment process had been scrapped entirely, and no one had been appointed to the petitioner’s post. However, they failed to produce any formal notification or policy decision proving this claim. The respondents sought additional time to submit their replies and place correct facts on record.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the petitioner’s exclusion from contract renewal appeared to be an arbitrary decision, especially given that two other similarly placed individuals were retained while she was not. It was noted that there was no formal order terminating the petitioner’s contract or indicating that her position had been discontinued. Furthermore, the respondents failed to provide any documented decision regarding the scrapping of the recruitment process.
The Court emphasised that replacing an ad-hoc employee with another ad-hoc employee is impermissible and reiterated that employment decisions must follow principles of fairness and transparency. It found merit in the petitioner’s claim that the respondents had selectively chosen whom to retain without a valid justification, making the decision appear discriminatory. The Court also took note of a similar case (Brijeshkumar Sinha v. Vice Chancellor, Rashtriya Raksha University & Ors.), where the status quo was granted in favour of the petitioner under comparable circumstances.
The decision of the Court:
The writ petition was granted ad-interim relief. The Court directed the respondents to maintain the status quo regarding the petitioner’s service conditions, treating her employment contract as continuing until further orders in light of the absence of a formal termination or non-renewal order.
Case Title: Dr. Deepali Jain v. The Rashtriya Raksha University & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nirzar S. Desai
Case No.:R/Special Civil Application No. 969 of 2025
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Utkarsh J. Dave, Advocate; Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Shukla, Advocate
Picture Source :
