Guest Lecturers Appointed At College Level Have No Right To Regularization; State Can Revise Policy To Prioritize Competitive Exams: Madras High Court

"To compare regular recruitment with regularization, is akin to comparing oranges with apples. Procedurally flawed appointments cannot be regularized in order to grant employment rights," Madras High Court, in a significant ruling, held that Guest Lecturers appointed through college-level committees do not possess an indefeasible right to regularization, particularly when the State chooses to shift toward a merit-based recruitment process through competitive examinations.

A Division Bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan observed that the State is empowered to revise its policy on regularization at any time before a final selection list is published, especially to ensure transparency and meritocracy in public employment.

The case reached the Division Bench after the State of Tamil Nadu challenged a Single Judge's order which had quashed the Government’s decision to recruit 4,000 Assistant Professors via the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB). The Single Judge had previously directed the State to continue a 2020 regularization policy for 1,146 Guest Lecturers, invoking the principle that the "rules of the game" cannot be changed once the process has commenced.

The primary questions before the court were whether Guest Lecturers appointed at the college level have a fundamental right to be regularized and whether the State can abandon a regularization policy in favor of a fresh recruitment process through written competitive examinations. The court was also called upon to determine if the "rules of the game" principle applies to executive policies that have not yet resulted in a final selection list.

Distinction Between Regular Recruitment and Regularization

The Division Bench emphasized that recruitment and regularization are fundamentally different legal concepts with distinct goals. While recruitment is a statutory, rule-based process designed to fill substantive vacancies through open competition, regularization is merely a remedial measure to confer status on temporary or contractual staff.

The court noted that for an appointment to be considered regular, it must strictly adhere to the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It observed that the Guest Lecturers in question were selected through "walk-in interviews" or college-level committees, which do not equate to a State-wide open competitive process.

Court Clarifies No Fundamental Right To Regularization

Relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (III), the court reiterated that there is no fundamental right for those employed on daily wages or contractual bases to claim absorption into service. It held that regular appointments can only be made by following procedures consistent with constitutional mandates.

The Bench further observed that the right to be treated equally cannot be extended to a claim for parity between daily wagers and regularly recruited employees. It noted that treating unequals as equals would violate the core tenets of the Constitution.

"Rules Of The Game" Principle Inapplicable To Regularization Policies

The court meticulously distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Bihar Vs. Mithilesh Kumar, noting that the "rules of the game" principle applies when a formal recruitment process for sanctioned posts is already complete. In the present case, the regularization process initiated in 2020 had not concluded, and no final selection list had been published.

The Bench clarified that the State is empowered to change its recruitment policy at any time, and such changes apply prospectively. Since the Guest Lecturers were not armed with a final recommendation for appointment, they could not prevent the State from adopting a more transparent, merit-based selection method.

Precedent In Y.V. Rangaiah No Longer Binding

Addressing the respondents' reliance on Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao, the court pointed out that the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar (2023) has already held that Rangaiah does not reflect the correct position of law. The court noted that unless a statutory duty exists, a candidate only has a right to be considered under the rules existing at the time of the actual selection.

The Bench observed that there are no statutory rules governing the regularization of Guest Lecturers; the process was initiated merely as a "benevolent policy" via an executive order. Consequently, the Government retains the right to revise or withdraw such a policy in the interest of administrative efficiency.

The Role Of Teachers As Architects Of The Future

The Court strongly deprecated the State's practice of dragging its feet on regular appointments and instead relying on temporary Guest Lecturers for years. It observed that students rely on teachers not just for academic success but for character development, and therefore, the State must ensure the "cream of the resources" is recruited.

The Bench noted that the failure of the State to conduct regular recruitments had led to the current situation where over 7,000 posts remain vacant. It emphasized that a fair and transparent recruitment process is essential to avoid "backdoor entries" and to uphold the standards of higher education.

Final Directions And Relief For Guest Lecturers

While setting aside the Single Judge's order, the Division Bench issued several directions to balance the interests of the Guest Lecturers. The court directed the Teachers Recruitment Board to notify an additional 1,292 posts for recruitment, bringing the total to approximately 4,000 as originally planned.

The Court ordered that Guest Lecturers be granted age relaxation and a maximum of 15 weightage marks based on their years of experience in the upcoming recruitment cycle. Crucially, the Bench directed that the Guest Lecturers currently in service must not be ousted until the new recruitment process is completed.

Date of Decision: May 27, 2026