MP High Court Rejects Guest Lecturers' Plea For Regularization, Notes They Had Opportunities To Participate In Regular Recruitment

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected the plea of Guest Faculty Lecturers working in Government Colleges for regularisation of their services, observing that they had the opportunity to participate in the regular recruitment process for Assistant Professor posts. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 413]

Reiterating that said teachers 'have no vested right of regularization', the division bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain held;

"This Court could have given some sympathetic consideration to the case of the petitioners, if the State of Madhya Pradesh had not been carrying out regular recruitment for the position of Assistant Professors in Government colleges. It is not disputed by any of the rival parties that the State Government has been carrying out regular recruitment to the regular posts of Assistant Professors in the State by issuing successive advertisements through MPPSC from time to time. Therefore, it is not the case where the guest faculties have been engaged for a long time without they being given a chance to appear in the regular recruitment. Infact, the guest faculties have been given a chance to appear in regular recruitment which are being regularly advertised in the State of Madhya Pradesh from time to time". 

The court further considered petitioners' grievance that whenever they are disengaged due to the joining of a regular employee, they are either not considered for engagement against available vacancies or are offered positions at distant colleges.

Thus, the bench directed 

"we direct the State Government to ensure that upon being fallen out, the petitioners are given offer at the nearest place where position is available for his/her subject". 

The grievances were concerning Clause 6.1 of the circular of October 5, 2023, which enhanced the honorarium payable to Guest Faculty Lecturers from ₹1,500 to ₹2,000 per day, subject to a maximum of ₹50,000 per month. The petitioners also challenged the monthly ceiling, contending that it is inconsistent with the remuneration prescribed under UGC Regulations, 2018. 

The circular of October 6, 2023 introduced certain concessions for Guest Faculty Members in the regular recruitment process initiated through an advertisement dated September 26, 2023 for the post of Assistant Professors, Sports Officers and Librarians in Government Colleges. These included 25% horizontal reservation across vertical categories, onus marks, and age relaxation at the rate of one year for each academic session served as Guest Faculty, subject to a maximum relaxation of 10 years. 

The age relaxation was initially made applicable to three successive recruitment advertisements. These concessions were subsequently incorporated into MP Education Service (Collegiate branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 through amendment notification of December 31, 2024, substituting Rule 11(8). 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the said clause 6.1 was contrary to clause 13 of the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018. 

The counsel for the petitioners argued that, per Clause 13, appointment on a contractual basis should not exceed 10% of the total number of faculty positions. It was also argued that payment to Guest Faculty should not be less than the minimum gross salary payable to a regularly appointed teacher. 

Referring to the Apex case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, the petitioners argued that in case of conflict between State and Central legislation, the Central legislation shall prevail. Further, the petitioners also relied on Jaggo v. Union of India.

The counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioners were wrongly connecting contractual teachers with guest faculty. The respondents claimed that Clause 13 of UGC Regulations is for contractual teachers. 

The court rejected the petitioners' contention claiming to be at par with contractual teachers, observing that the basic requirements of Clause 13 of UGC Regulations apply to those contractual teachers who have been appointed through the same selection procedure as regular appointed teachers. 

The bench held that, in the present case, the Guest Teachers were not appointed through PSC but at a local level on a merit basis as per the assessment system of the State. Thus, the guest lecturers were appointed through a different system than the appointment procedure of Regular Assistant Professors. The bench held that guest faculty cannot claim to be covered under Clause 13.0 of UGC Regulations, 2018. 

Further, the court noted that UGC itself creates a distinction between Guest Faculty and Contractual Teachers. Thus, clause 6.1 of the order of October 5, 2023 was not in conflict with Clause 13 of UGC Regulations. 

The court noted that the State, through executive instruction of October 6, 2023, extended experience marks, horizontal reservation of 25%, and age relaxation to Guest Faculty Teachers in regular recruitment. These concessions were subsequently incorporated into the Education Service Collegiate Branch Recruitment Rules, 1990. The court noted that the amendment rule provides 25% horizontal reservation across all vertical categories to Guest Faculty members who have completed at least one academic year of teaching, along with age relaxation of one year for each academic session served, subject to a minimum of 10 years. 

Further, the bench noted that the State had carved out 'sufficient relaxations and reservations' for guest faculty. Accordingly, the petitions were disposed of. 

For Petitioners: Advocates Ravindra Kumar Gupta and Brindawan Tiwari

For State: Additional Advocate General Bramhadatt Singh

For Respondents: Advocate Aditya Pachori