Temporary guest faculties hold no vested right to stall regular recruitment or claim automatic regularization.

The petitioners, working as Guest Faculties/Guest Instructors at Government Industrial Training Institutes (I.T.I.) in District Ratlam, challenged an advertisement dated 17.01.2026 issued by the M.P. Staff Selection Board for the regular recruitment of Training Officers.

The petitioners had been engaged for several sessions of 11 months, separated by "artificial" one-month breaks.

They sought to quash the advertisement or, alternatively, prayed for regularization of their services, reservation of vacancies (25%), and age relaxation, citing similar benefits provided to 'Atithi Shikshak' in the School Education Department and legislative protections for guest faculties in the State of Haryana.

1. Whether temporary Guest Faculties possess a legally vested right to stall a regular recruitment process initiated by the State.

2. Whether the petitioners can claim regularization, mandatory reservation, or age relaxation based on policies from different departments or other States.

The Court primarily applied the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 16 regarding equality of opportunity in public employment.

It relied heavily on the landmark Constitution Bench decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, which established that adherence to recruitment rules is a basic feature of the Constitution and that temporary or contractual employees do not acquire a vested right to regularization or to block regular selection processes.

The Court also noted that statutory rules of one department (School Education) or one State (Haryana) do not have automatic or extraterritorial application to another department or State.

The Court reasoned that the petitioners accepted their roles as Guest Faculties with full knowledge of the temporary, session-wise nature of the engagement.

Consequently, this ad-hoc arrangement cannot ripen into a right for regular absorption.

The Court rejected the plea to stay recruitment pending a committee report on social security, holding that the mere constitution of an executive committee does not create substantive rights or warrant an injunction against filling sanctioned posts through competitive processes.

Furthermore, the Court found the petitioners' claim for parity with the School Education Department's 2018 Rules to be "entirely misconceived," as those rules are restricted to a specific cadre and cannot be transplanted into the Technical Education Department.

Applying Umadevi, the Court emphasized that Courts should not interfere with the State's economic or administrative arrangements by facilitating the bypassing of constitutional mandates for regular recruitment.

The Court affirmed that the impugned recruitment drive is a legitimate exercise of the State's duty to provide equal opportunity in public employment.

However, the Court granted the petitioners liberty to participate in the "Recruitment Selection Test 2026," provided they meet the prescribed eligibility criteria.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.