MP High Court: Guest Faculty Have No Regularisation Right, Must Get Nearest Posting

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that guest faculty in government colleges do not possess a vested right to regularisation and cannot claim the minimum salary of a regular Assistant Professor, while also directing the State to offer displaced guest faculty the nearest available posting in their subject. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain upheld the State's decision to cap the monthly honorarium for guest faculty at Rs 50,000, despite an increase in the daily rate to Rs 2,000. The court's order disposed of multiple petitions filed by guest faculty challenging the honorarium cap and seeking regularisation and continuous service.

This ruling has significant implications for the employment conditions and rights of guest faculty in Madhya Pradesh's government colleges. While the court affirmed the State's authority to set honorarium limits and denied claims for regularisation, it provided a measure of relief by mandating that displaced guest faculty be offered the nearest available posting. This acknowledges the practical challenges faced by these educators when their positions are affected by the joining of regular teachers or administrative changes. For legal practitioners, the judgment clarifies the legal standing of guest faculty, emphasizing that their engagement is contractual and does not confer a right to permanent employment or parity with regularly appointed staff, while also establishing a procedural safeguard for their redeployment.

The legal context for this decision involves the interpretation of government circulars, University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations, and existing case law. The petitioners challenged Clause 6.1 of a State circular dated October 5, 2023, which revised the daily honorarium but imposed a monthly ceiling. They argued this cap conflicted with Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, which stipulates that emoluments for contract teachers should not be less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. The petitioners also cited precedents like Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi and Jaggo v. Union of India, seeking regularisation and continuous service. The High Court, however, relied on established legal principles that guest faculty appointments are temporary and do not create a right to regularisation, distinguishing the present case from those where such rights might have been recognized.

The key parties involved are the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, and the guest faculty members who filed the petitions. The Division Bench, presided over by Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and including Justice Vivek Jain, delivered the judgment. The UGC regulations and previous court decisions served as important legal references in the proceedings.

Practitioners advising guest faculty or educational institutions should note that the High Court has affirmed the State's prerogative in setting honorarium caps and has denied claims for regularisation based on the nature of guest faculty appointments. However, the directive for offering the nearest available posting upon displacement is a crucial point for ensuring fair treatment. Attorneys should advise their clients that while regularisation is unlikely, the State has a procedural obligation to facilitate continued employment through redeployment. It is also advisable to monitor any future policy changes or further judicial interpretations regarding the rights and conditions of guest faculty in the state.