Mehak Talwar and Namita Khare, both German teachers, joined Delhi University’s Department of Germanic and Romance Studies as ad-hoc lecturers.Every four months, their contract was renewed. “We found ourselves back at the same pay grade. There was no yearly increment,” said Mehak.Eight years later, little has changed.“We’re still ad-hocs,” said Namita.“We taught through the pandemic, without a break… There was no support from the institution for online teaching at all,” said Mehak.“There were no vacations,” she added. “We were continuously going on and on, teaching, teaching.”In July this year, the Delhi High Court ruled on their plea filed in 2022, saying they were “entitled to the relief of regularisation” as it came down strongly on the university for “consciously using ad-hoc appointments as a substitute for regular employment”.The duo had sought regularisation of their employment as well as quashing of a revised guideline for screening or shortlisting candidates for direct recruitment to the post of assistant professor in the department — which, they claimed, excluded long-serving ad-hoc faculty members like themselves. (see box)Story continues below this adThree months later, however, the university filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the HC order.In its petition filed in September, DU sought a stay on the High Court’s order, arguing: “The impugned judgment sets a wrong precedent by permitting ad-hoc teachers to claim regularisation of their services, which is impermissible under law.”The university said the court had “erred” in holding that an ad-hoc appointment could lead to a legitimate expectation of regularisation and that this “interferes with the University’s autonomy”.A long fightNamita and Mehak are among a handful of DU’s ad-hoc teachers who have legally challenged the system.Story continues below this ad“We were told we’re wasting our time, money,” said Namita. “But it was also mentally exhausting… we would go and meet our lawyer, sit there, come back at night, go back to the department again.”Both women have deep roots in academia.Mehak, 39, studied German and Psychology at Gargi College, followed by a Master’s and a PhD enrolment in DU.Namita, 51, pursued an integrated Master’s from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). She went to Germany to complete her MPhil on German Teachers’ Training, and Translation Diplomas. She also has a NET (National Eligibility Test) qualification.“When it came to work. there was nothing that set us apart from our colleagues who have permanent jobs,” Namita said. “We were teaching core courses, running the programme.”Story continues below this adIn its order, the HC bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul said: “The petitioners were not engaged for a finite project or stop-gap arrangement, but have been entrusted with core instructional and administrative responsibilities… [Their] continued exclusion from the zone of regularisation, despite fulfilling all eligibility conditions and having rendered long and meritorious service, is violative of Articles 14 and 16…”It had also underlined that the petitioners have uninterruptedly “taught continuously for more than a decade”, and their prolonged engagement by DU “demonstrates that the petitioners have been treated as indispensable to the functioning of the Department.”Even after the judgment, the teachers said, there was silence from the university.They wrote twice to the Vice-Chancellor — in July and August — requesting the University to adhere to the High Court order.Story continues below this adThey urged the university not to “pursue further legal recourse” and instead to “honour the spirit of justice”.When contacted, Vice-Chancellor Yogesh Singh told The Indian Express that he was not aware of the matter and asked to contact Registrar Vikas Gupta.The Registrar did not respond to calls and messages.Both women, meanwhile, said they continued in DU because they love teaching — and because they can’t afford to leave.“I have a home loan to pay,” said Mehak. “I can’t give up on my financial independence.”Story continues below this adNamita added, “My elder daughter is 21, she just finished graduation. My younger one is in Class 12. I want to be financially independent. Since I expect my husband to contribute equally to the household chores, I also want to contribute equally to the family income.”Explained: What did the teachers challenge in the Delhi High Court?The duo had challenged DU’s revised guidelines for shortlisting teachers for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Germanic and Romance Studies.What were the guidelines?On November 12, 2021, the university issued new screening guidelines that lowered the shortlisting threshold from 75 to 65 marks under its 100-point evaluation system.Unlike the earlier rules, which allowed the benchmark to be relaxed if too few candidates qualified, the revised norms fixed the 65-mark cut-off and set a limit of 30 candidates for the first post and 10 for each additional vacancy.Story continues below this adWhat did the duo seek?The teachers, in their petition, said neither had been shortlisted for regular interviews despite meeting the University Grants Commission’s eligibility norms such as possessing the required postgraduate qualifications, clearing NET or holding a PhD, and fulfilling the academic and research criteria laid out in the evaluation system.