Courts cannot compel guest-faculty appointments to vacancies pending regular recruitment.

The petitioners had been appointed as Assistant Professors (Guest) at Purnea College of Engineering for an initial period of one year: petitioner no. 1 on 28 September 2019 and petitioner no. 2 on 1 November 2017.

Their appointment orders permitted extension subject to satisfactory performance, but no formal extension orders were produced.

Petitioner no. 2 relied on a certificate dated 22 February 2022 stating that he had been working until that date.

The petitioners stated that they had been stopped from working from 7 November 2022 and sought continuation until regularly selected Assistant Professors became available.

By order dated 26 June 2025, the Court directed the Principal to decide whether the petitioners should be permitted to continue as Guest Assistant Professors.

During the subsequent hearing, the State informed the Court that eight posts existed in the relevant subject, six were occupied by regular Assistant Professors, and two were vacant.

The petitioners also relied on an advertisement for Guest Faculty at B.P. Mandal Engineering College, Madhepura, and a Government memorandum concerning Guest Faculty appointments in universities and colleges.

Whether the petitioners could claim a right to continue as Guest Assistant Professors in the absence of formal orders extending their initial one-year appointments?

Whether the Court could direct the respondents to appoint or continue the petitioners against two vacant sanctioned posts in the Civil Engineering Department?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to consideration for appointment as Guest Faculty if the respondents subsequently decided to fill the vacant posts through Guest Faculty appointments?

The Court applied the principle that a contractual or guest appointment for a fixed term does not confer an automatic right of continuation after expiry of that term, particularly in the absence of a formal extension by the competent authority.

It further applied the limits of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that the High Court cannot direct appointment to vacant posts where the posts are intended to be filled through regular recruitment.

The Court also recognised that, if the employer elects to fill the posts through Guest Faculty appointments, the petitioners’ cases must be considered in accordance with the applicable process.

The petitioners’ original appointment orders were expressly limited to one year, and the record contained no competent orders extending their appointments beyond that period.

Although petitioner no. 2’s certificate indicated that he had worked until 22 February 2022, the certificate did not establish an enforceable right to continued appointment thereafter.

The Court found that the advertisement relied upon concerned another engineering college and different subjects, while the Government memorandum related to universities and colleges rather than engineering colleges under the concerned department.

Since six of the eight sanctioned posts were already occupied by regular teachers and the remaining two vacant posts were not being filled through Guest Faculty at that time, Article 226 could not be used to compel the respondents to appoint the petitioners.

It held that the petitioners had no automatic right of continuation beyond their fixed-term appointments and that the Court could not order appointment against vacant posts pending regular recruitment.

However, the Court clarified that if the respondents decide to fill the two vacant posts through Guest Faculty appointments, the petitioners’ cases must be considered by the College while undertaking that process.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with these observations.