Allahabad High Court
SMT ARTI VERMA AND 10 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
Contractual appointments governed by a fixed three‑year term may be lawfully terminated and fresh recruitment undertaken; the ad‑hoc employee principle does not extend to such contractual appointments.
Summary
The petitioners, appointed on a contractual basis as Vice‑Principal and nursing staff in Uttar Pradesh para‑medical colleges, challenged the State's decision to refuse extending their contracts beyond the three‑year term prescribed in a Government Order of 15‑04‑2022 and to issue fresh advertisements. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti, asserting that ad‑hoc employees cannot be replaced by another ad‑hoc employee, and on a prior Allahabad High Court decision in Misbah Moin v. Union of India. The Court examined whether the principle for ad‑hoc appointments applies to contractual appointments limited to three years and whether mandamus can compel extension. It observed that the contractual term is fixed by the contract and the Government Order merely indicates that contracts continue until regular appointments are made, not that they may exceed three years. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the State’s fresh recruitment and held that the petitioners are entitled only to work up to the contractual expiry, pending the outcome of a related special appeal. The writ petitions were therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a contractual appointment limited to three years can be terminated before a regular appointment is made despite a Government Order stating contracts continue till substantive appointment.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s rule that an ad‑hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad‑hoc employee applies to contractual appointments.
- Whether the court can issue mandamus to compel extension of contractual appointments.
- Whether the State may issue fresh advertisements for new contractual appointments.
Subjects
- contractual appointment
- extension of contract
- ad‑hoc employee
- mandamus
- government order
- higher education
- Uttar Pradesh
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 13756 of 2025
Smt Arti Verma And 10 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhtar Ali, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Along with :
1. Writ - A No. 18750 of 2025:
Sanjay Kumar Yadav and 6 others
Versus
State of U.P and 3 others
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Akhtar Ali, Advocate for petitioners in Writ-A No. 13756 of 2025 and Sri
Vikram Bahadur Yadav, Advocate for petitioners in Writ-A No. 18750 of
2025 and Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for State-Respondents.
2. Petitioners were appointed on contractual basis as Vice Principal and
Nursing Staff in different Para-Medical and Nursing Colleges of State of Uttar
Pradesh. Their contractual appointments were governed by a Government
Order dated 15.04.2022 that their term of contract would be of two years which
can be extended further for one year. It was also mentioned in said Government
order that contractual appointments will be made till regular appointments are
made.
3. Petitioners are aggrieved that respondents have now denied to extend
their contractual appointments beyond a period of three years and
advertisement is issued for fresh contractual appointments.
WRIA No. 13756 of 2025
2
4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that
contractual appointees cannot be replaced by a fresh set of contractual
appointees. Petitioners be allowed to work on contract till a regular
appointment is made and he placed reliance on a judgment passed by
Supreme Court in the case of Manish Gupta and another vs. President,
Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others, 2022(15) SCC 540 that an ad hoc
employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and can be replaced
only by regularly selected candidate.
5. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that in similar circumstances
contractual appointees on the post of General Tutor have approached this
Court in Misbah Moin and another vs. Union of India and others,
2025:AHC:188291 when this Bench has rejected their writ petition by
following order dated 28.10.2025:
“1.Heard Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Abrar Ahmad and Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. Petitioners, two in numbers have approached this Court that they were
appointed on temporary basis on the post of General Tutor in the College
of Nursing under the Aligarh Mullim University in the year 2023 and
their temporary appointment was extended year to year till 2024-2025
and now their appointment on temporary basis is not being extended,
whereas appointment on temporary basis of other similarly situated
General Tutor were extended, therefore, they are before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material or
any subsequent event which could justify aforesaid act of respondents.
There is no complaint against the petitioners and they have discharged
their duties diligently.
WRIA No. 13756 of 2025
3
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents by referring an Office
Memo dated 8.8.2025 submits that two General Tutor Posts which were
vacant in 2023 filled by Local Selection Committee held on 10.8.2023 on
temporary basis, will be advertised for temporary appointment for one
year after 30.6.2025. The advertisement will be done by the Dean F/o
Medicine as per qualifications and procedure prescribed in the CRR-
2023 and in such event, petitioners' candidature will be considered. He
further submits that no mandamus can be issued to continue with
temporary appointment of petitioners on the post of General Tutor.
5. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records.
6. Admittedly, petitioners were appointed on temporary basis on the post
of General Tutor for a period of one year and their appointments were
extended year to year basis and after 2024-2025, same are not extended.
7. Temporary appointment is based on the need of the employer,
therefore, this Court cannot pass an order of mandamus that petitioners'
temporary appointment be extended. However, as referred above, since
respondents are likely to advertise a fresh advertisement for temporary
appointment on the post of General Tutor in the College of Nursing,
therefore, petitioners will be at liberty to apply as and when such
advertisement is issued and their respective past experience be also taken
note of.
8. It is also observed that Dean, Faculty of Medicine will take all
endeavor to issue fresh advertisement in terms of Office Memo dated
8.8.2025 as early as possible.
9. This Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of.”
6. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that said petitioners have
filed Special Appeal Defective No. 1011 of 2025 wherein the aforesaid
order has been stayed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated
25.11.2025 and for reference the same is reproduced hereinafter:
WRIA No. 13756 of 2025
4
“1. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
Umang Srivastava, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, Shri
Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
University and Shri Abrar Ahmad Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no.1.
2. The appellants were appointed on temporary basis as General Tutor in
the College of Nursing under Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh in the
year 2023 on basis of an advertisement issued by the respondents. The
appointment was initially for a period of one year or till the vacancy
exists or until further orders, whichever is earlier. By another order
dated 26.09.2024 issued with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, the
term was extended from 05.09.2024 to 31.12.2024 or till the vacancy
exists or until further orders, whichever is earlier. Once again, by order
dated 01.01.2025, it was further extended for a further period of three
months with effect from 01.01.2025. On 21.04.2025, the term was further
extended for three months with effect from 01.04.2025 in respect of
appellant no.1 and four other employees, who were also working as
General Tutor on ad-hoc basis under local arrangement. In respect of
appellant no.2, a separate order was passed on 08.08.2025 extending his
term from 01.04.2025 to 30.06.2025. In respect of four other General
Tutors, the term has been extended by an order dated 09.07.2025 for a
further period of nine months with effect from 01.07.2025. However, in
respect of the appellants, no order was passed and this resulted in filing
of the writ petition by the appellants.
3. The learned Single Judge taking notice of the fact that the appointment
of the appellants was on ad-hoc basis and that the respondent-University
would be advertising the two posts for being filled up on temporary basis
under local arrangement disposed of the writ petition observing that as
and when such advertisement is issued, it would be open to the appellants
to apply against the same.
WRIA No. 13756 of 2025
5
4. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Umang
Srivastava, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that
the respondent-University cannot substitute an ad-hoc employee with
another ad-hoc employee and, consequently, the learned Single Judge
should have granted the relief in relation to the extension of the term of
the ad-hoc appointment until regular appointment is made. He further
submits that in respect of four other ad-hoc appointees, the University
itself has extended their term for nine months with effects from
01.07.2025 whereas in case of the appellants it has not passed any such
order, which amounts to hostile discrimination.
5. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellants has
relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Manish Gupta and Another
vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and Others, (2022) 15 SCC 540
where the Supreme Court has held that an ad-hoc employee cannot be
replaced by another ad-hoc employee. Concededly, the respondents have
proposed to issue advertisement for the two posts against which the
appellants were working on ad-hoc basis again to be filled up on ad-hoc
basis under local arrangement.
6. As a regular appointment is not proposed and again the respondents
propose to make ad-hoc arrangement, therefore, in our opinion, the facts
of the case would be squarely covered by the judgement of Supreme
Court cited on behalf of the appellants.
7. Shri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the University prays
for time to file counter affidavit. He further submits that even if the
appellants are directed to continue, liberty be granted to the University to
advertise the posts for being filled up under local arrangement as under
the relevant provisions, the University cannot continue the appointment
beyond the period of one year.
8. As prayed, two weeks' time is granted to the University to file counter
affidavit.
9. List on 10.12.2025.
WRIA No. 13756 of 2025
6
10. Having regard to the facts of the case and the submissions made, it is
hereby directed that the appellants would be permitted to continue until
regular appointment is made or atleast till the period other identically
situated ad-hoc appointees have been permitted to continue vide order
dated 09.07.2025.
11. Office is directed to register the appeal as a regular appeal and not
as defective appeal, as no defect has been pointed out by the office.”
7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material
available on record.
9. Admittedly, the petitioners are contractual appointees and their term of
contract was maximum of three years. The condition of contract is not under
challenge. Therefore, apparently there is no legal bar to conduct a fresh
recruitment for fresh appointments on contract.
10. Manish Gupta (supra) was related to ad hoc appointees and their
appointments were made initially for a period of one year or till the vacancy
exist or until further orders, whichever is earlier, whereas in the present case the
term of contract is not beyond three years.
11. A reference made to a Government order is a general reference that
contractual appointments in general be made till substantive appointments
are not made. The said Government order is not issued for the purpose
that once a contractual appointment is made, such appointment would
continue even beyond three years till a substantive appointment is made.
A contractual appointment is abide by conditions of contract. Therefore,
the Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality when a fresh
advertisement is issued and contract of petitioners is not extended beyond
three years.
12. The Court takes note that fresh advertisement issued is under not under
challenge as well as there is no ground to challenge an order dated 03.02.2025
which only states that direction passed by Respondent-Department be followed
strictly.
WRIA No. 13756 of 2025
7
13. The Court also takes note that in somewhat similar manner this Court has
passed order in Misbah Moin (supra), which has been challenged in Special
Appeal and a Division Bench has stayed the order. Therefore, following
judicial propriety, these writ petitions are disposed of with above referred
observation that it would remain subject to outcome of aforesaid Special
Appeal. Meanwhile respondents will allow petitioners to work as per their
contract.
14. A copy of this order be placed on record of Special Appeal Defective No.
1011 of 2025.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
February 23, 2026
AK
Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…