Guest Faculty In Education Institutions Are Hired On Contractual Basis, Can't Claim Regularization Of Service As Inherent Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Brief Facts:

The Petitioners were working as Guest Faculty. They alleged that they have fulfilled the requirements for regularization in their positions as Guest Faculty in Grade I, Grade II, and Grade III over five to twelve years. They highlighted that their qualifications included passing the Teachers Eligibility Test and holding B.Ed and D.Ed qualifications. Based on these credentials, they contended that they were entitled to be absorbed or regularized in their current posts. This argument was supported by circulars issued by the Directorate of Public Education, Bhopal, specifically dated 11.09.2019 and 09.09.2022, which provided guidelines for the regularization of Athithi Shishak. Despite making representations to the Principal Secretary School Education Department Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal, Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya Gautam Nagar Housing Board and Employees Selection Board regarding their regularization, no decision was reached. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioners approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court (“High Court”) and filed a writ petition.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court observed that the Petitioners were serving as Guest Faculty members and were currently in active service. The High Court emphasized the contractual nature of their employment, which typically lasts for an academic session. The High Court acknowledged that the faculty members cannot be replaced by another set of Guest Faculty. However, the High Court made a clear distinction between the rights and entitlements of regular employees and those of contractual employees like Guest Faculty members.

The High Court held that while Guest Faculty members are permitted to continue their services, they cannot claim benefits equivalent to those of regularly appointed teachers. It pointed out that the nature of the two cadres, i.e., Guest Faculty and regular teachers, cannot be equated, and regularization cannot be demanded as an inherent right. Instead, it held that the Petitioners were working on a contract basis for each academic session, subject to the continuation of their services based on their performance.

The High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. S.N. Goyal [(2008) 8 SCC 92], where the SC held that contractual employment is fundamentally different from public employment governed by statutory rules, and the remedy available to contractual employees in case of termination is limited to seeking damages rather than specific performance or reinstatement.

Furthermore, the High Court to its Division Bench decision in Brijendra Gupta vs. State of M.P. and others, where it was held that contractual employees cannot insist on regularization without a policy, scheme, or regulation backed by law and enforceable against the employer.

\Without specific rules, regulations, or circulars governing the regularization of Guest Faculty, the High Court held that no mandamus could be issued to compel the authorities to regularize the Petitioners' services.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Rajbhan Dwivedi and Others vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through its Principal Secretary School Education Department and Others

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 3137 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 93

Advocate for the Petitioner: KU Neelam Goel

Advocate for the Respondent: SS Chouhan

Click Here To Read /Download Order