Supreme Court Says Contractual Appointment Against Regular Vacancy Is Illegal

In Lokendra Kumar Tiwari v. Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court has held that offering a contractual appointment against an advertisement issued for regular vacancies is “patently illegal and unconstitutional” when there is no justification for treating candidates differently.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S. V. N. Bhatti allowed the appeal filed by an Assistant Professor who had been appointed on a contractual basis despite applying for a regular post advertised by Indian Institute of Information Technology Allahabad.

The Court directed the institute to appoint the appellant as a regular Assistant Professor within four weeks. It also granted continuity of service, though no financial benefits were awarded for the intervening period.

The dispute arose from a recruitment advertisement issued in January 2013 for regular faculty positions in Pay Band-III and Pay Band-IV. The appellant had applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the Information Security/MSCLIS stream.

His academic qualifications included a Ph.D. in Information Security from the University of Allahabad and a first-division M.S. in Cyber Law and Information Security from IIIT-Allahabad. He also had prior teaching experience and had worked as a guest faculty member at the institute.

After interviews were conducted in March 2013, the Selection Committee recommended 13 candidates for regular appointments. However, the appellant and another candidate were offered contractual appointments for 12 months at a fixed salary of ₹40,000 per month.

The appointments were later cancelled in 2014, resulting in litigation before the Allahabad High Court. Although earlier proceedings led to reconsideration of the appointments, the institute again offered the appellant only a contractual position in 2017.

His petitions before the Single Judge and Division Bench were dismissed mainly on the ground that he had accepted the contractual appointment and continued to work under those conditions. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court.

Allowing the appeal, the Court clarified that the case was not related to regularisation of a contractual employee. Instead, the issue concerned the legality of making contractual appointments through a recruitment process that was initiated solely for regular posts.

The bench observed that the institute failed to provide any reason for denying the appellant a regular appointment despite his qualifications and participation in the same recruitment process as other candidates who were appointed regularly.

“The record does not disclose any reason for denying the post for which the Appellant was shortlisted and interviewed,” the Court observed.

The judgment further held that such unequal treatment violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because similarly situated candidates were granted regular appointments while the appellant was denied the same benefit without explanation.

“We observe that the procedure initiated is for a regular appointment, and the Selection Committee, after perusing the candidates’ applications and credentials, has not given equal or uniform treatment to all candidates invited for an interview,” the Court said.

The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant.