A Guest Teacher’s Claim for Continued Service Must Be Considered by the University’s Competent Authority

The petitioner was appointed as a Guest Teacher in Psychology at S.B.A.N. College, Darhetta, Lari, for 11 months, by Memo No. 09/GIA/25 dated 5 March 2025.

He alleged that his service was satisfactory but had not been extended, although the services of a junior teacher had been extended. He sought continuation as a Guest Teacher and payment of honorarium.

The University submitted that the petitioner had not placed his appointment letter, including its terms and conditions, on the record; it also stated that continuation depended on the service terms and satisfactory performance, and that the petitioner had made representations to the competent authority.

The Court noted that the petitioner had placed the grievance before the Registrar.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the University to extend his Guest Teacher service and ensure payment of honorarium.

2. Whether the petitioner’s grievance should first be considered by the competent University authority on a fresh representation.

The Court referred to its decision in C.W.J.C. No. 15566 of 2024, which, relying on Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti, AIR OnLine 2022 SC 576, and Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 292, had stated that a Guest Teacher’s service should not be dispensed with and should continue until regular selected candidates join.

In this case, however, the Court did not determine the petitioner’s entitlement under that principle; it directed consideration of his representation by the competent authority “in accordance with law”.

Although the petitioner relied on the alleged extension of a junior’s service and on the principle noted in the earlier writ petition, the University disputed that an extension followed automatically, pointing to the service terms and the absence of the appointment letter from the record.

The Court did not resolve these factual or legal questions. Given that the Registrar was competent to consider the grievance and that representations had already been made, it directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation with supporting documents and the order, leaving the merits for the University to decide.

It directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation, with a copy of the order and relied-upon documents or decisions, preferably within two weeks; the University must dispose of it by a speaking order within a further six weeks, in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions and observations.