/2022 INSC 0305/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3084­3088  OF 2022
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12946­
12950 of 2017]
MANISH GUPTA & ANR. ETC. ETC.      ...APPELLANT(S)
 
VERSUS
PRESIDENT, JAN BHAGIDARI SAMITI
& ORS. ETC. ETC.     ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R 
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted. 
2. The present appeals challenge the common judgment and
order dated 8 th
 February, 2017, passed by the Division Bench of
the   High   Court   of   Madhya   Pradesh,   Gwalior   Bench,   in   Writ
Appeal No. 386 of 2016 along with companion matters, thereby
1

allowing   the   appeals   filed   by   the   State   of   Madhya   Pradesh   as
well as the Jan Bhagidari Samiti and setting aside the common
judgment and order dated 29 th
  September, 2016 passed by the
learned   single   judge   of   the   High   Court   of   Madhya   Pradesh,
Gwalior  Bench in Writ Petition  (Civil) Nos. 4716 of 2016, 5326
of 2016 and 5145 of 2016.  
3. The facts in the present case are taken from Writ Petition
(Civil) No.4716 of 2016.
4. The   State   Government   of   Madhya   Pradesh,   vide
Notification   dated   30 th
  September,   1996,   started   a   Scheme
known   as   “Jan   Bhagidari   Scheme”   (hereinafter   referred   to   as
“the   said   Scheme”).     As   per   the   said   Scheme,   the   Government
had   decided   that   the   local   management   of   the   Government
Colleges was to be handed over to a Committee so as to ensure
public   participation   in   the   Government   Colleges.     Under   the
said   Scheme,   the   said   Committees   were   to   be   constituted
having members from various fields.  The Chairman of the said
Committee was to be appointed by the State Government from
2

the   members   of   the   concerned   Civic   Body,   District   Panchayat,
Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) or Member of Parliament
(MP).   The District Collectors or their representative were to be
the   ex­officio   Deputy   Chairman   of   the   General   Council   of   the
said   Committee.   The   representatives   of   the   donors,   farmers,
and   the   representative   of   benefitting   schools   were   to   be   the
members   of   the   said   Committee.     The   said   Committee   was
known as Jan Bhagidari Samiti.  
5. Vide   the   Government   Circular/Order   dated   5 th
  October,
2001, the State Government decided to start some courses on a
self­financing   basis.     For   the   said   courses,   the   appointments
were   to   be   made   on   contractual/tenure   basis   and   the
honorarium of the teachers and other staff was to be decided by
the said Committee.  
6. In pursuance to the said Scheme, an advertisement came
to   be   issued   in   the   year   2014   for   appointment   of   teachers   as
guest   faculty   for   the   Academic   Year   2014­2015   in   different
Colleges.  The writ petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4716 of
3

2016,   having   requisite   qualifications,   applied   to   the   advertised
positions   in   pursuance   to   the   said   advertisement.     Upon   their
selection   by   the   duly   constituted   Committee,   they   were
appointed.   After   the   end   of   the   Academic   year,   the   writ
petitioners   were   discontinued   from   service.     Fresh
advertisements   were   issued   for   the   next   Academic   Year   2015­
2016.  Being aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioners approached
the High Court by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4716 of 2016.
The said writ petition was allowed by the learned single judge of
the High Court vide judgment and order dated 29 th
  September,
2016,   thereby   directing   that   the   writ   petitioners   therein   would
continue to work on their respective posts till regular selections
were   made.     It   was   also   directed   that   the   writ   petitioners
therein   were   entitled   to   get   the   salary   in   accordance   with   the
UGC circular issued in February, 2010.  
7. Being aggrieved thereby, the State Government as well as
the   Presidents   of   the   Jan   Bhagidari   Samitis   preferred   appeals
before   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court.     The   Division
4

Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment and order
dated   8 th
  February,   2017,   allowed   the   writ   appeals   and   set
aside   the   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   learned   single
judge  of  the  High  Court.    Being  aggrieved  thereby,  the  present
appeals by way of special leave. 
8. We   have   heard   the   Shri   Rana   Mukherjee,   learned   Senior
Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   and   Shri   K.M.
Nataraj,   learned   Additional   Solicitor   General   (“ASG”   for   short)
appearing on behalf of the respondents. 
9. Shri   Rana   Mukherjee,   learned   Senior   Counsel,   would
submit that the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in
interfering  with  the judgment and  order  passed by  the learned
single   judge.     He   submits   that,   as   a   matter   of   fact,   the
appellants were duly qualified and were selected in accordance
with   due   selection   process   and   were   required   to   undergo   the
selection process in every Academic Year.   He submits that the
modus operandi   of the Government Colleges was to engage the
services   of   the   appellants   at   the   beginning   of   the   Academic
5

Session   and   to   discontinue   them   at   the   end   of   the   Academic
Session;   and   again   to   issue   fresh   advertisements   for   the   next
Academic   Session.     In   response   to   the   same,   the   candidates
were   again   required   to   follow   the   selection   process   to   get
appointed.     It   is   therefore   submitted   that   though   there   was
sufficient   workload   for   regular   posts,   the   appellants   were
deprived   of   regular   employment.     It   is   submitted   that,   in   any
case,   the   appellants   had   not   sought   for   regularization.     The
relief claimed was only for continuation of their services till duly
selected   candidates   were   appointed.   He   therefore   submits   that
the   impugned   judgment   and   order   delivered   by   the   Division
Bench of the High Court deserves to be set aside. 
10. Shri   K.M.   Nataraj ,   learned   ASG,   on   the   contrary,   would
submit   that   the   appellants   were   appointed   in   accordance   with
the said Scheme.   It is submitted that under the said Scheme,
the Government Colleges were required to  run  various courses
on a self­financing basis.   The expenditure for the same was to
be meted out from the tuition fees, received from the students.
6

He   submits   that   the   appointments   of   appellants   were   neither
ad  hoc   nor  temporary.   It is submitted that their  services were
as guest lecturers and were on contractual basis for 11 months.
11. Shri   Nataraj   further   submits   that   the   requirement   of   the
guest   lecturers   was   from   year   to   year   on   the   basis   of   the
number   of   students   available   for   particular   course(s).     He
further   submits   that   the   said   Scheme   itself   provided   for
appointment of lecturers on a guest faculty basis and as such,
since   the   appellants   had   chosen   not   to   challenge   the   said
Scheme,   the   Division   Bench   had   rightly   allowed   the   writ
appeals and dismissed the writ petitions.  
12. A   perusal   of   the   advertisement   dated   24 th
  June,   2016
issued   by   the   Principal,   Government   Kamla   Raja   Girls   Post
Graduate   Autonomous   College,   Gwalior,   which   is   at   Annexure
P­2  of  the   Appeal  Paper   Book  and  the   advertisement  dated   2 nd
July,   2016   issued   by   the   Principal,   SMS   Government   Model
Science College, Gwalior, M.P., which is at Annexure P­3 of the
Appeal Paper Book, would show that the appointments were to
7

be   made   after   the   candidates   had   gone   through   due   selection
procedure.   Though Shri Nataraj, learned ASG has 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   ad hoc   basis.   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.     Reliance   in   this   respect   can   be   placed   on   the
judgment   of  this   Court  in   the   case   of   Rattan   Lal   and   others
vs.   State   of   Haryana   and   others 1
  and   on   the   order   of   this
Court in the case of  Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab
and others 2
.
13. In that view of the matter, we do not find that an error was
committed   by   the   learned   single   judge   of   the   High   Court   by
directing   the   writ   petitioners   to   continue   to   work   on   their
1   (1985) 4 SCC 43
2   (2007) 13 SCC 292
8

respective posts till regular selections are made.   We, however,
find that the direction issued by the learned single judge of the
High Court that the writ petitioners would be entitled to get the
salary  in accordance with the UGC  circular is not sustainable.
The   advertisements   themselves   clearly   provided   that   the
selected   candidates   would   be   paid   the   honorarium   to   be
determined by the said Committee.
14. We  are  informed  at   the   Bar   that  the  appellants   are   being
paid on a per hour basis, i.e., at the rate of Rs.1,000/­ per hour
and   they   are   continuing   to   work   in   pursuance   of   the   order   of
status   quo   passed   by   this   Court   on   28 th
  April,   2017.     We   also
find   substance   with   the   submission   made   on   behalf   of   the
respondent   –   State   that   continuation   of   the   appellants   would
depend   on   the   number   of   students   offering   themselves   for   the
concerned courses.  
15. In that  view of the  matter, we are inclined to  partly  allow
the present appeals.    
16. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
9

A. The appeals are partly allowed. 
B. The  impugned   judgment   and  order   dated  8 th
  February,
2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench in Writ Appeal No.386
of 2016 along  with  companion matters is quashed and
set aside;
C. The   judgment   and   order   dated   29 th
  September,   2016
passed   by   learned   single   judge   of   the   High   Court   is
modified as under:
(i) The   writ   petitioners   ­   appellants   herein   would   be
entitled   to   continue   on   their   respective   posts   till
they are replaced by regularly selected candidates;
(ii) The   writ   petitioners   ­   appellants   herein   would   be
continued on their respective posts provided that a
sufficient number of students are available for the
particular course(s) for which the writ petitioners –
appellants herein are appointed. 
10

(iii) The   writ   petitioners   –   appellants   herein   would   be
entitled   to   honorarium   at   the   rate   of   Rs.1,000/­
per hour as is being paid to them presently. 
17. Pending   application(s),   if   any,   shall   stand   disposed   of.
There shall be no order as to costs. 
…..….......................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
       …….........................J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 21, 2022.
11