UGC’s contractual-teacher pay guarantee does not extend to locally appointed guest faculty.

The petitioners were working as Guest Faculty in Government colleges in Madhya Pradesh.

They challenged Clause 6.1 of the State’s policy dated 5 October 2023, which fixed honorarium at Rs. 2,000 per day subject to a monthly cap of Rs. 50,000, arguing that it conflicted with Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.

They also sought regularisation, payment at the minimum of the regular Assistant Professor pay scale, continuation in service, and related relief concerning regular recruitment and placement after falling out of service.

The State maintained that the petitioners were Guest Faculty, engaged through a process different from regular recruitment, and that the honorarium cap accorded with the UGC’s 28 January 2019 circular.

The petitions were considered together because they raised overlapping grievances.

1. Whether the Rs. 50,000 monthly honorarium cap under Clause 6.1 of the policy dated 5 October 2023 conflicted with Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, entitling the petitioners to the minimum gross salary of a regular Assistant Professor.

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to regularisation, continued engagement beyond the availability of work or until regular incumbents joined, or quashing of the regular recruitment process.

3. Whether the State was required to offer alternative engagement at the nearest available college when a petitioner fell out of service.

Judicial review of executive policy is limited: courts do not assess its wisdom or substitute their preferred policy, but may intervene where it is arbitrary or contrary to constitutional, statutory, or other legal provisions (State of Orissa v. Bihari Charan Khuntia; Union of India v. Pushpa Rani; State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga; State of Jharkhand v. Ashok Kumar Dangi).

Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 provides that fixed emoluments for contract teachers should not be less than the monthly gross salary of a regular Assistant Professor, where the prescribed selection procedure is the same as for regular teachers.

The UGC circular dated 28 January 2019 separately provides for Guest Faculty honorarium of Rs. 1,500 per lecture, subject to a Rs. 50,000 monthly cap, and addresses their engagement conditions.

Under Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti, Guest Faculty may continue until replaced by regularly selected candidates, subject to sufficient student numbers and the availability of work; Guest Faculty have no entitlement to continue once that requirement ends.

The State’s amended Rule 11(8) of the M.P. Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 provides horizontal reservation and age relaxation for qualifying Guest Faculty in specified recruitment advertisements.

The Court held that the petitioners’ local, merit-based engagement did not follow the MPPSC selection procedure applicable to regular Assistant Professors; they therefore did not satisfy Clause 13.0’s selection-procedure requirement and could not claim its pay guarantee.

The Court distinguished Shah Samir Bharatbhai v. State of Gujarat because the contractual teachers there had been recruited through a process comparable to that for regular Assistant Professors.

It found the State’s honorarium policy consistent with the UGC’s separate circular for Guest Faculty, rather than in conflict with Clause 13.0.

The petitioners had no vested right to regularisation, and regular recruitment had been conducted through MPPSC, with age relaxation and reservation provided for Guest Faculty; accordingly, neither regularisation nor quashing the recruitment advertisement was warranted.

Applying Manish Gupta, the Court also declined to prevent Guest Faculty from falling out when a regular incumbent joined or the need for their services ceased.

It nevertheless accepted that placement at distant colleges could cause hardship and directed the State to offer a fallen-out petitioner the nearest available position in their subject.

It directed the State, when a petitioner fell out of service, to offer engagement at the nearest place where a position in that petitioner’s subject was available.

The petitions were disposed of on those terms.