The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the State Government to offer guest faculty teachers the nearest available posting in their respective subjects when they lose their existing assignments, provided a suitable position is available. The direction came while disposing of a batch of three petitions filed by guest lecturers working in government degree and postgraduate colleges across the state.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain pronounced the order on October 6, 2026. The Court declined to grant regularisation or the petitioners’ demand for remuneration equivalent to the minimum gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor.
The petitioners challenged Clause 6.1 of the State Government’s policy dated October 5, 2023, which provides an honorarium of ₹2,000 per day to guest faculty teachers, subject to a monthly ceiling of ₹50,000.
They argued that Clause 13.0 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018, requires contractual teachers to receive fixed emoluments not lower than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. They also sought regularisation, continuity of service, and relief from repeatedly competing in recruitment examinations conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC).
The State opposed these demands, contending that guest faculty appointments differ from contractual appointments covered by Clause 13.0. It relied on the UGC circular dated January 28, 2019, which prescribes an honorarium of ₹1,500 per lecture, subject to a monthly maximum of ₹50,000, for guest faculty.
The High Court held that the petitioners could not claim the benefit of Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations because their appointments had not followed the selection procedure applicable to regular Assistant Professors. Their local-level, merit-based engagement differed from recruitment through the MPPSC.
The Bench also rejected the demand for regularisation, noting that the State had been conducting regular recruitment and that guest faculty teachers had opportunities to participate in those selections. Their continued engagement remained subject to the appointment of regular candidates and the availability of teaching work.
The Court further held that the State’s policy of paying guest faculty teachers ₹2,000 per day, subject to a monthly ceiling of ₹50,000, was consistent with the UGC’s January 28, 2019, circular and did not conflict with Clause 13.0 of the 2018 Regulations.
However, the Court acknowledged the grievance concerning distant postings offered to teachers who had lost their existing assignments. It considered that issue separately and found limited relief justified.
The Court directed:
“Therefore, to that extent, we direct the State Government to ensure that upon being fallen out, the petitioners are given offer at the nearest place where position is available for his/her subject. This would reduce the heart burning of the petitioners and extinguish the complaints of discrimination in giving offers in alternative colleges to the petitioners upon being fallen out.”
The High Court disposed of all three petitions with this limited relief. It rejected the remaining claims, including regularisation, higher remuneration under Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, and the challenge to regular recruitment advertisements.
The State Government was directed to offer petitioners who lose their existing assignments a posting at the nearest place where a position is available in their respective subjects. The ruling does not confer a right to regularisation or to remuneration equivalent to the regular Assistant Professor pay scale.
Case Title: Dr. Abha Agrawal and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others;
