Delhi HC slams DU, orders regularisation of 2 ad hoc teachers

In an far-reaching order dated July 11, the high court reprimanded Delhi University (DU) for “consciously using ad-hoc appointments as a substitute for regular employment”.

The Delhi high court’s order could have far-reaching implications for ad hoc teachers across the university, who are denied perks given to permanent or even temporary teachers, and who have been fighting a battle for regularisation or absorption for more than a decade.

However, the university has not made any public statement on the order and whether it will regularise the jobs of the two teachers.

DU vice-chancellor Yogesh Singh told The Federal, “We’re taking legal opinion and considering all options available with us.” When asked if the university would challenge the order, he refused to divulge any further information, continuing to maintain that they were waiting to take an “opinion”.

What is the court case, and what did the Delhi high court rule on regularising the jobs of the two DU teachers?

Two ad hoc teachers – Namita Khare and Mehak Talwar – went to the HC in 2022, demanding that their appointment as assistant professors be “regularised as regular/permanent appointments” and challenging a notification by DU which revised guidelines for recruitment to direct teaching posts.

Also read: DU launches CSAS portal for 2025-26 UG admissions

They argued that despite fulfilling the minimum criteria by the University Grants Commission (UGC), they were not selected.

On July 11, a bench of Justices Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul ruled that the petitioners were “entitled to the relief of regularisation”.

In a scathing order, the bench said the teachers were “appointed after public advertisements, have taught continuously for more than a decade, and have performed every duty that regular assistant professors perform”.

Further, the order added that their service has been uninterrupted, except for the breaks imposed by the University itself.

“There is no allegation of any illegality in their initial appointments. On the contrary, the University’s conduct demonstrates that the petitioners have been treated as indispensable to the functioning of the German department… The petitioners were not engaged for a finite project or stop-gap arrangement, but have been entrusted with core instructional and administrative responsibilities within a permanent academic framework,” the order said.

The order also pointed out that the petitioners’ claim is not one of “automatic absorption” but of “fair and non-arbitrary consideration for regularisation”, backed by years of sustained contribution, institutional reliance, and constitutional equity.

“To deny such consideration would perpetuate the very mischief censured by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo and Shripal (another case), and would result in manifest injustice,” it added.

The Delhi HC said the petitioners’ “continued exclusion from the zone of regularisation” though they continued to fulfill all eligibility conditions and having rendered long and meritorious service, is “violative of Articles 14 and 16 and cannot be sustained”.

But its most critical observation was that in this case there was “no regular recruitment” for a long time, “despite repeated extension of the petitioners’ tenure against these very posts”. According to the court, this “reinforces the presumption” that DU was “consciously using ad-hoc appointments as a substitute for regular employment, thereby circumventing its obligation to provide fair service conditions”.

Also read: Who took the call to drop Manusmriti from all Delhi University courses?

Why are ad hoc teachers at a disadvantage?

In simple terms, ad hoc teachers do not enjoy most of the perks that are given to regular employees.

They are appointed on a four-month contract and are not eligible for increments, promotions, medical benefits, study leaves, academic leaves or LTC (Leave Travel Concession). Their contract can be terminated on one day’s notice.

Earlier, ad hoc teachers were not eligible for maternity leave either. Therefore, their contracts would be terminated after delivery, or they’d have to show up days after delivery so as not to lose their employment. After a decision by the University in 2022, ad hoc employees are now entitled to maternity leave, although teachers argue there are still issues with its implementation.

What has DU’s approach towards ad hoc hiring been so far?

While ad-hoc employees have been hired in DU for a long time, Abha Dev Habib, secretary of the Democratic Teachers’ Federation (DTF), told The Federal that “Adhocism” began during the OBC (Other Backward Classes) expansion in 2008-09, and reached its zenith under the tenure of former vice-chancellor Dinesh Singh.

“With the OBC expansion, we became 1.5 times stronger. Thereafter, DU shifted from an annual system to the semester system to FYUP (four-year undergraduate programme) in 2014, to the CBCS (Choice Based Credit System) in 2015, and now to the UGCF (undergraduate curriculum framework). Since there were such rapid changes, the university appointed ad hoc teachers en masse and made very few regular appointments in some departments. For many reasons, ad-hocism continued to grow in DU, and as a result, the absorption of ad-hoc teachers became a major political issue,” she said.

Meanwhile, former academic council member Naveen Gaur pointed out that the OBC expansion coincided with the retirement of many teachers, creating several vacancies. He said that while there was always an issue with ad-hoc appointments, it became the worst under Dinesh Singh.

Also read: DU launches 4th-year UG course, but lack of infra, teachers haunts colleges

“The university preferred to employ ad-hoc teachers because they do not have to go through the whole rigmarole of taking out an advertisement in the newspapers, etc., which is a requirement for both temporary and permanent positions. All they needed to do for ad hoc appointments is to just post an advertisement on the college website,” he said.

What has been the fallout of the order for ad hoc teachers at DU?

The order is being seen as a landmark verdict for around 600 ad hoc teachers in DU.

Until 2022, ad-hocs made up nearly 42 per cent of DU’s teaching staff. However, the percentage has now dropped to about 6 per cent, according to DU Teachers’ Association president A K Bhagi.

Yet, it validates the demand that long service and institutional experience should count in appointments.

An ad-hoc teacher at an off-campus college told The Federal that an order like this is certainly a ray of hope for them.

“There are many people like me who have worked for 10 years and are still ad-hocs. So, many of my colleagues have even lost their jobs. We do all the grunt work, the administrative work for our departments that our permanent colleagues don’t want to do, and we have none of the perks.”

What are the implications of this judgment for DU?

The UGC does not allow regularisation. Permanent teaching positions must be filled through open advertisements, and even long-serving ad hoc teachers have to apply afresh and compete in interviews.

However, with the HC’s strong order, the ruling could open the door for similar legal challenges by other ad hoc teachers, said an educator.