MP HC: Guest Faculty Have No Vested Right To Regularisation, But Must Get Nearest Posting When Displaced

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that guest faculty teachers in government colleges have no vested right to regularisation and cannot claim the minimum salary of a regular Assistant Professor, upholding the State’s honorarium of Rs 2,000 per day, capped at Rs 50,000 a month.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain, however, granted limited relief, directing the State to offer displaced guest faculty the nearest available posting in their subject.

The order, authored by Justice Jain, disposed of three connected petitions filed by guest faculty working in government degree and postgraduate colleges across the State.

The petitioners challenged Clause 6.1 of the State’s circular dated 05.10.2023, which raised the honorarium from Rs 1,500 to Rs 2,000 per day but set a ceiling of Rs 50,000 per month. They argued that the cap contravened Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, under which contract teachers’ fixed emoluments should not be less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor.

Relying on Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi, Jaggo v. Union of India and Shah Samir Bharatbhai, they also sought regularisation and continuous service even when regular incumbents join. They said that, having appeared in the 2017 MPPSC examination, they should not be made to sit for it repeatedly.

Advocates Ravindra Kumar Gupta and Brindawan Tiwari appeared for the petitioners. Additional Advocate General Bramhadatt Singh represented the State, while Advocate Aditya Pachori appeared for the respondents.

The State defended the circular as a policy decision. It argued that Clause 13.0 applies to contractual teachers, not guest faculty, and that the Rs 50,000 ceiling mirrors a UGC circular dated 28.01.2019.

Before examining the merits, the bench recalled that courts can interfere with policy only where it is arbitrary or violates constitutional or statutory provisions.

On the pay claim, the bench found that Clause 13.0 covers only teachers selected through the same procedure as regular Assistant Professors. “The petitioners admittedly have not been appointed after being selected by PSC,” the Court observed, adding that they were appointed locally on merit, without any competitive examination.

The bench noted that the UGC treats contractual teachers and guest faculty differently. Since the State’s honorarium matched the UGC circular of 28.01.2019, the Court concluded that Clause 6.1 “is not in conflict with Clause 13.0 of UGC, Regulations 2018.”

It also distinguished Shah Samir Bharatbhai, where relief was granted because the contractual teachers had been recruited through the same public process as regular teachers.

Rejecting the regularisation plea, the Court held, “The petitioners have failed to establish any vested right of regularization.” It stressed guest faculty “only have a right to continue till the regular incumbents take charge either on appointment or transfer.”

The Court said it could have shown sympathy had regular recruitment not been under way, but MPPSC advertisements are issued regularly, giving guest faculty a chance to compete.

The Court also pointed to Rule 11(8) of the M.P. Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990, which gives guest faculty 25 per cent horizontal reservation, along with age relaxation of one year per session taught, up to ten years. It held that these relaxations “do not suffer from vice of arbitrariness or discrimination,” and refused to quash the recruitment advertisement.

On the practice of guest faculty falling out when regular teachers join, the bench saw no reason to interfere, since the need for a guest faculty member “naturally comes to an end” once a regular incumbent takes charge.

The bench did, however, accept that the petitioners’ complaint of being offered distant postings, or none, “may have some substance,” especially for those nearing retirement age. It directed the State to ensure that displaced guest faculty “are given offer at the nearest place where position is available for his/her subject.”

Holding that this limited relief met the ends of justice, the Court denied all other reliefs and disposed of the petitions.

Case Title: Dr. Abha Agrawal and Others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others 

Order Date: October 6, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain