State Must Consider Guest Lecturers’ Fresh Representation Within Four Weeks of Submission

The petitioners, serving or formerly serving as guest lecturers in government colleges, sought, among other reliefs, to quash notifications inviting applications for guest lecturers, regularisation from their initial appointment, payment of arrears, and consideration of related representations

During the proceedings, the State issued a Government Order dated 30 April 2026 providing for the temporary engagement of certain guest lecturers as “Academic Coordinators” from the 2026–27 academic year, subject to the Order’s conditions

The State submitted that the scheme was intended to accommodate the petitioners and similarly situated persons who lacked the UGC qualification for Academic Coordinator posts

The petitioners sought liberty to make fresh representations; they also asserted that some petitioners possessed the requisite UGC qualifications and claimed remuneration for periods worked, a claim disputed by the State

1. Whether, in light of the Government Order dated 30 April 2026 and the parties’ submissions, the petitions should be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to submit fresh representations for consideration by the State

2. Whether the Court should determine in these proceedings the petitioners’ claims for regularisation, arrears, or other substantive reliefs

The petitions invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

The Court did not cite or apply any statute, precedent, or substantive doctrine to decide the claims for regularisation, arrears, or the validity of the notifications. It relied on the Government Order dated 30 April 2026 as relevant executive action and directed the State to consider any fresh representation, with supporting documents, and decide it in accordance with law within a specified period

The interim order in Rajesh Chavan, concerning prescribed qualifications for teacher appointments, was placed before the Court but was not used as the basis for the disposition

The Court took account of the State’s new scheme and the State’s submission that it was intended to provide an alternative arrangement for the petitioners and similarly situated guest lecturers

Given the petitioners’ request for liberty to present their grievances afresh, the Court considered it appropriate to require the State to examine those grievances and make a decision under the applicable law, rather than adjudicate the claims on their merits in these petitions

The Court did not resolve the parties’ dispute over remuneration or decide whether any petitioner was entitled to regularisation or arrears

It directed the State to consider the representations and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks of their submission

The Court did not grant regularisation, arrears, or the other substantive reliefs sought, and made no determination on their merits.