Guest faculties have no vested right to regularisation or age relaxation beyond statutory limits.

The petitioner, a Guest Faculty member in the Higher Education Department, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an advertisement dated 30.12.2025 for the recruitment of Assistant Professors.

The petitioner sought age relaxation based on her years of teaching experience, a 25% reservation for Guest Faculty, and the modification of age limit conditions fixed as of 31.12.2024.

Procedurally, the matter was heard by a Division Bench at Gwalior, where both parties conceded that the legal controversy was identical to a previous case decided by the Jabalpur Principal Seat.

1. Whether Guest Faculty members have a vested right to claim age relaxation beyond the statutory limits prescribed in the Recruitment Rules

2. Whether the State is mandated to provide a 25% reservation or regularize the services of Guest Faculty in the absence of specific statutory provisions

3. Whether Rule 11(8) of the MP Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990, and the proviso to Rule 4 of the MP Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997, regarding maximum age limits, are ultra vires or arbitrary

Madhya Pradesh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990, specifically Rule 11(8) which limits age relaxation for Guest Faculty to a maximum of 5 years

Rule 4 of the M.P. Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997, which caps the maximum age for women at 45 years

Union of India v. Shivbachan Rai, which established that prescribing age limits and relaxation extents is a matter of government policy and not inherently arbitrary

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, which prohibits the regularization of temporary or contractual employees against regular vacancies outside of the prescribed recruitment process

The Court reasoned that Guest Faculty appointments are temporary/tenure-based and do not confer a vested right to regular appointment or to participation in selection processes outside the statutory framework

Applying the principle of policy autonomy, the Court found that the 5-year relaxation under Rule 11(8) and the 45-year cap for women under the 1997 Rules were reasonable exercises of legislative power

The Court harmonized the 1990 and 1997 Rules, concluding that both operate to set an outer eligibility limit of 45 years for Assistant Professor recruitment

Regarding reservation and regularization, the Court held that the recruitment source is strictly governed by the 1990 Rules, and since those Rules do not provide for Guest Faculty reservation, the Court cannot create such a category

Following the precedent in W.P. No. 4996/2016, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and vacated all interim reliefs