The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the State’s guest faculty honorarium cap of Rs 50,000 a month, holding that guest faculty in government colleges have no vested right to regularisation, but has directed the State to offer displaced guest faculty a position at the nearest place where a post in their subject is available.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed challenges by guest faculty of government degree and postgraduate colleges to the monthly cap of Rs 50,000 on their honorarium, and to the denial of regularisation, while directing the State to offer displaced guest faculty a posting at the nearest place where a post in their subject is available [Dr. Abha Agrawal and Others v. State of M.P. and Others].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain disposed of three connected writ petitions, with the order authored by Justice Jain. The petitions were reserved on September 22, 2026 and pronounced on October 6, 2026.
The case
The petitioners, guest faculty working in government colleges, challenged Clause 6.1 of the State’s order dated October 5, 2023. The clause raised the daily honorarium from Rs 1,500 to Rs 2,000 but made payment subject to a monthly cap of Rs 50,000. They contended that the cap conflicts with Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, which ties the fixed pay of contract teachers to the salary of a regular Assistant Professor.
The petitioners also sought regularisation and continuation in service even after regular incumbents join, and challenged a recruitment advertisement. The State defended the circular as a policy decision, argued that Clause 13.0 covers contractual teachers and not guest faculty, and said the cap mirrors a UGC circular dated January 28, 2019. The petitioners were represented by Advocates Ravindra Kumar Gupta and Brindawan Tiwari, and the State by Additional Advocate General Bramhadatt Singh.
The honorarium cap
The Bench held that Clause 13.0 applies only to contractual teachers selected through the same procedure as regular Assistant Professors. Since the petitioners were engaged as guest faculty without that selection process, the Court concluded that Clause 6.1 of the 2023 order is not in conflict with the UGC Regulations, 2018. The Court also distinguished a decision in which relief was granted because the contractual teachers there had been recruited through the same public process as regular teachers.
No vested right to regularisation
Rejecting the plea for regularisation, the Court held:
The petitioners have failed to establish any vested right of regularization before this Court.
The Bench observed that guest faculty only have a right to continue till regular incumbents take charge, whether on appointment or transfer, and that the requirement of the guest faculty then comes to an end. It saw no reason to interfere with guest faculty being released when regular teachers join.
On the recruitment advertisement, the Court noted that the Rules were amended on December 31, 2024, and that substituted Rule 11(8) of the M.P. Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 provides 25% horizontal reservation across all vertical categories for guest faculty. It found no arbitrariness or discrimination and declined to quash the advertisement.
The directions
While denying the main reliefs, the Court directed the State to ensure that displaced guest faculty are not left without a post:
ensure that upon being fallen out, the petitioners are given offer at the nearest place where position is available for his/her subject.
The Court recorded that this concern is especially relevant for those near retirement. It held that the petitioners were not entitled to any of the other reliefs claimed, and disposed of the petitions.
Why the order matters
The order draws a line between teachers selected through the regular recruitment process and guest faculty engaged locally, holding that the UGC pay protection for contract teachers attaches only to the former. It also reaffirms that a guest engagement, by its nature, lasts only until regular incumbents take charge.
At the same time, the direction to offer displaced guest faculty the nearest available post in their subject gives them a measure of continuity, without conferring any right to regularisation.
Case Title: Dr. Abha Agrawal and Others v. State of M.P. and Others [WP No. 16358 of 2024, with WP No. 24961 of 2023 and WP No. 24402 of 2024]
Bench: Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur
Date of Order: October 6, 2026 (reserved September 22, 2026)
Appearances: Ravindra Kumar Gupta and Brindawan Tiwari for the petitioners; Additional Advocate General Bramhadatt Singh for the State; Aditya Pachori for the respondents
