The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has dismissed a series of petitions filed by guest faculty members seeking the regularization of their services in government degree and postgraduate colleges. The division bench, presided over by Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain, ruled that these instructors do not possess a vested right to permanent employment, emphasizing that the state has consistently provided opportunities for them to compete for regular Assistant Professor positions through the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. While the bench upheld the state's policy regarding honorarium caps, it introduced a humanitarian safeguard, directing the government to offer displaced lecturers positions at the nearest available institutions when their services are terminated due to the arrival of regular appointees.

The petitioners, who had been serving as guest faculty for extended periods, challenged Clause 6.1 of the government’s October 5, 2023, circular, which capped their daily honorarium at ₹2,000 per day, subject to a monthly limit of ₹50,000. They contended that this policy violated the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations of 2018, specifically arguing that guest faculty should be treated as contractual teachers entitled to the same minimum gross salary as a regular Assistant Professor. The court, however, clarified that the provisions of the UGC Regulations relied upon by the petitioners apply exclusively to contractual teachers hired through the same selection procedure as regular recruits—a criteria the guest faculty failed to meet.

In its detailed analysis, the court distinguished between contractual appointments and guest faculty engagements. It noted that whereas regular Assistant Professors must pass a rigorous competitive examination, the guest faculty were appointed locally based on academic merit assessments. Consequently, the bench concluded that the state’s executive policy—which has been refined to include age relaxations, bonus marks, and horizontal reservation for guest faculty in regular recruitments—remains well within the legal boundaries of state administrative power.

Reflecting on the state’s commitment to regular recruitment, the court stated, "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." The bench observed that since the government actively conducts recruitment drives for permanent faculty, the guest faculty members were not left without avenues to achieve permanent status. Addressing the core demand for regularization , the judgment remained firm: "The petitioners have failed to establish any vested right of regularization before this Court."

Impact on Tenure and Deployment The ruling provides significant clarity regarding the status of temporary academic staff and the limitations of judicial interference in governmental policy decisions. By rejecting the argument that long-term service creates an automatic entitlement to regularization, the court reinforced the principle that employment conditions for guest faculty are governed by the specific terms of their engagement and the prevailing state policy. The court maintained that the state holds the prerogative to structure its workforce, and the existing policy—which includes recent amendments to the Madhya Pradesh Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990—constitutes a reasonable exercise of that power.

However, the court acknowledged the personal and financial hardships faced by guest lecturers when they are removed from their posts. Often, when a regular candidate is appointed or transferred, the guest faculty member is effectively sidelined. To mitigate the resultant distress, the bench issued a clear directive to the Higher Education Department : "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." This mandate aims to address grievances regarding "far-away" postings that were previously perceived as a virtual termination of service.

Regulatory Alignment and Future Recruitment The judgment clarifies that the state’s policy framework does not conflict with Central legislation. By analyzing the distinction between UGC Circulars and Regulations, the court determined that the honorarium structure is fully aligned with the requirements set forth by the governing academic bodies. The petitioners' attempt to frame their situation within the context of repugnancy—arguing that state policy should give way to central UGC norms—was ultimately unsuccessful due to the fundamental differences in appointment procedures and service characterization.

With these directives in place, the legal dispute concludes for the current cohort of petitioners. The state government is now required to implement the geographic preference policy for displaced lecturers, ensuring that the transition of staff is managed with greater stability. The court’s decision leaves the broader recruitment rules untouched, confirming that the current mechanisms for horizontal reservation and age relaxation for guest faculty, as incorporated into the 1990 Recruitment Rules, continue to represent the extent of the benefits afforded to them. The government continues to move forward with its recruitment process, with guest faculty members encouraged to leverage their earned concessions to transition into permanent roles.