ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :

"(i) That, by issuance of writ in Mandamus, Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent to regularize the petitioner on the post of Primary, Middle and Uchha Madhyamik Sikshak.

(ii) That, by issuance of writ in Mandamus, Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent to decide the representation filed by the petitioners for their regularization.

(iii) Any other writ/direction/order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper including cost of this petition may kindly be granted."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been engaged with the respondents as Guest Faculty (Atithi Shikshak Grade-I, Grade-II & Grade-III) for the last 10 to 15 years. He has passed the Teacher Eligibility Test and is also having B.Ed. and D.Ed. qualification. The petitioner has been continuing on the post of Guest Faculty till date. He has made several representations for regularization on the post of Guest Faculty Grade-I or Grade-II or Grade-III, but to no avail. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking regularization on the post.

3. A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner has been working as a guest faculty and he is still in service. The guest teachers are contractual employees and they are being appointed for an academic session and in terms of the series of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court, the guest faculty cannot be replaced by another set of guest faculty. The petitioner has been permitted to continue on the post of guest faculty. But as far as claiming the benefits equivalent to that of a regular employee is concerned, there cannot be any similarity between a guest teacher and that of a regularly appointed teacher. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the aforesaid aspects of the matter. Therefore, claiming the relief equivalent to that of the regular employees is not permissible. Both the cadres of employees i.e. the guest teacher and the regular teacher cannot be equalized. Regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The petitioner is only working as a guest faculty on a contract basis for an academic session subject to continuation of his services looking to his performance. The law with respect to guest faculties is settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Yadav v. State of M.P. and others in WP No. 6159 of 2022 dated 26.04.2022 that there cannot be any replacement of Guest Faculty by another set of Guest Faculty, but as far as contractual employees are concerned, they do not have any right asking for regularization as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. S.N.Goyal reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92 as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Brijendra Gupta v. State of M.P. and Others (W.A.No.617 of 2015) vide order dated 18.3.2016. Therefore, no mandamus can be issued directing the authorities for regularization of the petitioner. Merely continuous working for some time does not entitle the petitioner to claim regularization. Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.

4. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs..