Guest faculty engaged on eleven-month terms have no vested right to continue until regular appointments are made.

The petitioners were selected as guest faculty through Advertisement No. 01/2018 and appointed under terms providing for engagement for no more than one academic session—equivalent to eleven months—with automatic termination on 31 May and possible renewal based on satisfactory performance.

The State’s Resolution dated 13 April 2021 amended the earlier Resolution dated 20 August 2014 and specified an eleven-month engagement and a renewal process.

The petitioners challenged the application of those terms to them, claiming a right to continue until regular appointments were made and raising grievances concerning honorarium and work during vacation.

Separately, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Choudhary alleged that L.N. Mithila University excluded him from renewal despite an interim order protecting him; the Court also considered conflicting performance assessments and the University’s subsequent decision to place him in the “waiting for posting” category.

1. Whether the Resolution dated 13 April 2021 could prospectively amend the earlier resolution while affecting the petitioners’ claim to continue until regular appointments were made.

2. Whether guest faculty appointed before 13 April 2021 were entitled to the enhanced honorarium prescribed in the UGC communication dated 28 January 2019, independently of the 2021 Resolution.

3. Whether the petitioners’ treatment as contractual guest faculty was unfair and contrary to the principles in Jaggo v. Union of India and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand.

4. Whether L.N. Mithila University’s action concerning Dr. Choudhary’s renewal defied the High Court’s interim order dated 4 May 2026.

The State’s Resolution dated 20 August 2014 established the framework for appointing guest/part-time teachers, while the Resolution dated 13 April 2021 prospectively amended that framework, including the term and renewal conditions for such engagements.

The appointment notification and the petitioners’ accepted engagement terms provided for an eleven-month term, automatic termination at the end of that term, and possible renewal based on satisfactory performance.

The Court noted that the UGC communication dated 28 January 2019 concerning enhanced honorarium had been implemented.

It distinguished Jaggo and Bhola Nath on the facts, and relied on Gridco Ltd. v. Sadananda Doloi, (2011) 15 SCC 16, for the principle that contractual renewal may depend on the employer’s assessment of usefulness and need, absent circumstances warranting protective intervention.

The petitioners’ reliance on Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah, (1997) 6 SCC 623, was noted in argument, but the Court did not apply it to displace the express terms of their engagements.

The Court held that the 2021 Resolution operated prospectively and governed subsequent renewals; it did not retrospectively alter the petitioners’ initial appointments.

Their original appointment notifications already specified an eleven-month term and conditional renewal, and they had accepted those terms without objection; accordingly, they could not claim a right to remain engaged until regular appointments were made.

The honorarium and vacation-work grievances did not justify the broader claim: the enhanced honorarium had been implemented, and the University had arranged payment for the relevant academic work by treating ten days in June 2025 with twenty days in May 2026 as one month’s honorarium, without converting the engagement into a twelve-month term.

The Court found Jaggo and Bhola Nath distinguishable given the stated duration and renewal conditions of these engagements.

In Dr. Choudhary’s case, however, the University’s exclusion conflicted with the interim protection, and the conflicting assessments—including a positive departmental recommendation—undermined the decision not to renew him.

In Dr. Choudhary’s case, it set aside the “Not Recommended” notation and the consequential order placing him in the “waiting for posting” category, and directed his reinstatement as a guest teacher.

His continued engagement, like that of the other petitioners, remained subject to the Resolution dated 13 April 2021.

All three writ petitions were disposed of.