Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 7758
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN, J
Purushottam Pachouri – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 15692/2024
Shiv Shankar Tripathi,Advocate General
Contractual employees, including Guest Faculty, cannot claim regularization as a matter of right without a statutory basis or enforceable regulations.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 14 - Contractual Employment - The petitioners, working as Guest Faculty, sought regularization claiming equal treatment with regular teachers. The court held that Guest Faculty are contractual employees and cannot claim regularization as a matter of right. The distinction between contractual and regular employment was emphasized, and the absence of enforceable regulations for regularization was noted. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 6)
(B) Employment Rights - The court reiterated that contractual employees lack the right to demand regularization without a legal framework supporting such claims. The petitioners' continuous service does not confer a right to regularization. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, working as Guest Faculty for several years, claimed regularization based on their qualifications and service duration. They argued that the State Government's treatment constituted exploitation. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners, being contractual employees, do not have a right to regularization and that their claims were not supported by any enforceable policy or regulation. (Paras 5, 6)
Issues: The main issues included whether Guest Faculty could claim regularization and the legal standing of their employment status. (Paras 3, 4)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without a statutory basis for regularization, the petitioners could not equate their status with regular teachers, emphasizing the contractual nature of their employment. (Paras 4, 6)
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
The present petition has been filed seeking relief of regularization and other ancillary and consequential reliefs.
2. The petitioner who is present in person has submitted that the State Govt. has been following the system of taking work from Guest Faculties as teachers and they are being paid less than the amount paid to the regular teachers. In this manner, the State Govt. is exploiting the Guest teachers who are performing the same work and assigned the same duties but less salary is paid to such Guest Faculty. It is contended that it amounts to victimization and exploitation.
3. On query of the Court, the petitioner admits that the State Govt. had created reservation of certain percentage of seats for regular recruitment for those teachers who are working since long as Guest faculties and the present petitioner had also appeared in the same process but could not succeed as the number of seats were limited.
4. A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.3137/2024 has decided the issue regarding the right of Guest Teachers working in Schools in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The said petition has been dismissed in following terms :-
- "The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
- "(i) To issuance a writ in the nature of mandamus, Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent to regularize the petitioners on the post of Primary, Middle and Uccha Madhyamik Sikshak.
- (ii) That by issuance of writ in the nature of 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 petitioners that they have been working on the post of Guest Faculty Grade-I, Grade-II and Grade-III for the last five to twelve years. They have also passed the Teachers Eligibility Test and are having B.Ed and D.Ed qualifications and therefore, they are entitled for absorption/regularisation on the said posts. The Directorate of Public Education, Bhopal by a circular dated 11.09.2019 had issued directions regarding regularization of Athithi Shishak and a similar circular has been issued on 09.09.2022. The petitioners have made representation before the respondents for their regularisation, but the same has not been decided till date. Hence, this petition.
3. A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioners have been working as a Guest Faculty and they are 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 petitioners have 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 petitioners 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 petitioners are only working as guest faculties on contract basis for an academic session subject to continuation of their services looking to their performance.
4. As far as rights of contractual employees are concerned, they do not have any right asking for regularization of their services. The law with respect to contractual employees is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. S.N. Goyal reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92 wherein, it is held as under:-"Where the relationship of master and servant is purely contractual, it i
