J&K High Court criticises University of Kashmir for replacing contractual faculty with visiting & guest lecturers

STC NEWS DESK
SRINAGAR, JULY 07 (STC): The Jammu & Kashmir High Court in a judgment has criticised the University of Kashmir for replacing contractual faculty with visiting and guest lecturers.
Delivering the judgment reinforcing the legal principle that “one ad hoc arrangement cannot be replaced by another of similar nature”, the directed the respondent University to continue the services of contractual law lecturers until a core faculty is constituted in line with the rules.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that “It is not a happy situation that the University is running the show with ad hocism,” adding that hiring guest/visiting lecturers to circumvent the continuation of experienced contractual lecturers was “a mala fide exercise of power.”
The court cited Rule 17 of the Bar Council’s Rules of Legal Education, emphasising that the University is legally obligated to create a stable core faculty, given its large student intake and multiple law courses. Instead, the respondent institution was resorting to a “hire and fire policy,” which is detrimental to both the petitioners and the students.
The court in its judgment observed that while the university had advertised 12 positions of contractual Lecturers in 2023, it only appointed three, leaving a glaring shortfall of faculty members in the Department of Law.

“The respondent University seems to want to perpetuate this ad hocism by roping in visiting and guest faculty from other institutions, while discontinuing petitioners’ services,” noted the court.
The court also expressed serious concern over the practice of replacing teaching faculty after every academic session, noting its adverse impact on students’ academic continuity.
The court said that “a teacher must strike a chord with the students, which requires sustained interaction over a period of time. If faculty is frequently replaced, it will have deleterious consequences on the quality of education.”
The court held that replacing petitioners with temporary arrangements was legally impermissible and contrary to students’ interests.
It added that “the petitioners shall continue as contractual lecturers in the Department of Law till a core faculty is created and put in place. However, the University retains liberty to disengage them on grounds of non-performance or discipline.”
The court also distinguished between a “post” which is a sanctioned cadre position with designated duties and pay, and a “position,” which may be temporary or project-based.
(Inputs from livelaw.in)