The Madras High Court has decisively ruled that long-serving guest lecturers in government colleges have no legal right to regularization merely on the basis of prolonged service, affirming that public appointments must adhere to open, competitive, and constitutionally compliant recruitment processes. The judgment clarifies that regularization is a remedial administrative measure, not a substantive right, and cannot override statutory recruitment norms.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on the regularization of approximately 7,000 guest lecturers employed on a contractual basis in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Government Constituent Colleges across Tamil Nadu. These lecturers, all UGC-qualified, were appointed through college-level selection committees, often via walk-in interviews, without any state-level advertisement or competitive examination. Despite serving for five to over fifteen years, they were routinely terminated each May and reappointed annually before the new academic year. The lecturers, individually and through the Tamil Nadu Government College Guest Lecturers Welfare Association, repeatedly petitioned the government for regularization into permanent Assistant Professor posts.
Key Facts
- Guest lecturers were appointed between 2005 and 2020, primarily through college-level selection committees, not through the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) or any state-level process.
- All petitioners held UGC-qualifying degrees and met the minimum eligibility for Assistant Professor posts under UGC regulations.
- On 21.03.2020, the Government issued G.O.(Ms).No.56, Higher Education (F2) Department, proposing regularization of 1,146 guest lecturers through an interview-based process conducted by a five-member committee.
- The process under G.O.(Ms).No.56 involved verification of documents and interviews but did not include a written competitive examination.
- On 08.11.2022, the Government issued G.O.(Ms).No.247 and G.O.(Ms).No.248, replacing the interview-based process with a written competitive examination for regularization and simultaneously announcing the revival of 4,000 vacant Assistant Professor posts.
- The Government also directed the TRB to cancel its earlier recruitment notification (No.12/2019) and issue a fresh one for 4,000 posts through written examination.
- On 14.03.2024, the TRB issued a notification for 4,000 posts.
- On 06.10.2025, the Government issued G.O.(Ms).No.231, superseding G.O.(Ms).No.248, and directed the TRB to fill only 2,708 posts through written examination, excluding the 1,146 earmarked for guest lecturers.
- Written examinations for the 2,708 posts were conducted on 27.12.2025.
- The petitioners challenged G.O.(Ms).No.247 and G.O.(Ms).No.248 in writ petitions, seeking continuation of the regularization process under G.O.(Ms).No.56.
Procedural History
- 21.03.2020: G.O.(Ms).No.56 issued, proposing regularization of 1,146 guest lecturers via interview.
- 26.11.2018 and 14.08.2019: Director of Collegiate Education submitted proposals for regularization.
- 08.11.2022: G.O.(Ms).No.247 and G.O.(Ms).No.248 issued, replacing interview-based regularization with written examination.
- 14.03.2024: TRB issued notification for 4,000 Assistant Professor posts via written examination.
- 02.04.2024: Single Judge of Madras High Court quashed G.O.(Ms).No.247 and G.O.(Ms).No.248, directed continuation of regularization under G.O.(Ms).No.56 within 12 weeks.
- 28.01.2026: Court directed the State to file a clarificatory affidavit on its recruitment policy.
- 04.02.2026: Deputy Secretary filed affidavit confirming G.O.(Ms).No.231 dated 06.10.2025, cancelling the 4,000-post notification and directing TRB to fill 2,708 posts via written examination.
- 16.10.2025: TRB issued fresh notification for 2,708 posts.
- 27.12.2025: Written examination conducted for 2,708 posts.
- 04.02.2026: Reserved judgment.
- 27.05.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
For the State (Appellants):
- Argued that guest lecturers were appointed through non-competitive, college-level processes, violating constitutional norms under Articles 14 and 16.
- Contended that regularization under G.O.(Ms).No.56 was a policy decision, not a statutory right, and could be revised.
- Emphasized that the Supreme Court in Dr. K. Ragu v. Dr. N. Elumalai (2022) mandated competitive examinations for all appointments, including those with long service.
- Stated that 7,198 Assistant Professor posts remain vacant and that a transparent, merit-based recruitment process is essential for educational quality.
- Highlighted that 42,064 candidates applied for the 2,708 posts, indicating high competition and the need for a fair selection process.
For the Guest Lecturers (Respondents):
- Claimed a legitimate expectation of regularization under G.O.(Ms).No.56, as the process had commenced.
- Argued that changing the selection criteria mid-process violated the principle laid down in State of Bihar v. Mithilesh Kumar (2010).
- Asserted that their long service (5 - 15 years) conferred a right to regularization, citing Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (2024).
- Contended that requiring them to appear for a written examination after years of service was unfair and discriminatory.
- Maintained that their appointments were not ad hoc but were made in response to administrative exigencies and with the State’s tacit approval.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of G.O.(Ms).No.247 and G.O.(Ms).No.248 dated 08.11.2022.
- A writ of mandamus directing the State to complete regularization under G.O.(Ms).No.56 dated 21.03.2020.
- Inclusion of their prior service in the calculation of seniority and pension.
- Protection from termination until regularization.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether guest lecturers, appointed through non-competitive, college-level selection processes, have a legal right to regularization under a government policy, and whether the State can alter the selection criteria for regularization after the process has commenced but before final selection.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, argued that the original appointments of guest lecturers were not made through any open competitive process as required by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The selection was conducted by ad hoc college committees without public advertisement, standardized evaluation, or state-level oversight. The Government’s policy of regularization under G.O.(Ms).No.56 was a benevolent, non-statutory measure, not a legal entitlement. The Supreme Court in Umadevi (III) (2006) held that contractual employees have no right to regularization. The State’s shift to a written examination was justified by the need for transparency, meritocracy, and compliance with Dr. K. Ragu. The policy change was not arbitrary but responsive to judicial directives and administrative necessity.
For the Respondent
The respondents, represented by senior counsel and multiple advocates, contended that the regularization process under G.O.(Ms).No.56 had already commenced with document verification and interviews, and the State could not unilaterally change the rules mid-process, as held in Mithilesh Kumar. They relied on Vinod Kumar to argue that their service, though initially contractual, had become de facto regular due to long tenure and integration into the system. They emphasized that requiring experienced lecturers to compete against fresh applicants in a written exam was discriminatory and ignored their years of service. The State’s failure to conduct regular recruitment for over a decade created a legitimate expectation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by distinguishing between recruitment and regularization. Recruitment is a statutory, rule-based process initiated through public advertisement and competitive examination. Regularization, by contrast, is an administrative remedy to correct irregular appointments, not a mode of recruitment. The Court emphasized that no statutory rules govern the regularization of guest lecturers; G.O.(Ms).No.56 was purely an executive policy decision.
The Court then examined whether the original appointments met the criteria of an “open competitive process” as required by clause 3(i) of G.O.(Ms).No.56. It held that an open competitive process must satisfy four conditions: (1) wide public advertisement, (2) equal opportunity for all qualified candidates, (3) objective selection based on merit, and (4) transparency and independence. The college-level walk-in interviews and internal selection committees failed all four criteria. Advertisements were confined to individual colleges, not state-wide, and the process lacked standardization.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ reliance on Mithilesh Kumar, noting that case involved a candidate who had completed a formal recruitment process under statutory rules and was recommended for appointment. Here, no such final selection had occurred under G.O.(Ms).No.56. The process was still in its preliminary stages, with no final list published. The Court also distinguished Vinod Kumar, where the initial appointment process itself mirrored a regular recruitment with written tests and interviews. In contrast, guest lecturers were appointed without any such formalities.
The Court further held that Umadevi (III) squarely applied: contractual employees have no fundamental right to regularization, even after decades of service. The mere receipt of salary or provident fund benefits does not create a legal entitlement. The Court cited State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Singamuthu (2017), which held that casual appointments are permissible only to meet administrative exigencies and do not confer permanent rights.
The Court acknowledged the State’s failure to conduct regular recruitment for years, which led to the proliferation of guest lecturers. However, it held that this administrative lapse cannot be used to justify a constitutional violation. The Court emphasized that public employment must be based on merit and transparency, not seniority or tenure.
"The purpose of having an open competitive process for public post is because such a process ensures fairness, integrity and legality to the appointments of those being recruited to public posts."
The Court also rejected the argument that the State was bound by its own policy under G.O.(Ms).No.56. It held that executive policies, unlike statutory rules, are subject to revision, especially when they conflict with constitutional norms or judicial directives.
The Verdict
The State succeeded. The Madras High Court set aside the order of the Single Judge dated 02.04.2024, dismissed all writ petitions, and held that guest lecturers have no enforceable right to regularization. The Court directed the Teachers Recruitment Board to issue a fresh recruitment notification for an additional 1,292 posts, bringing the total to 4,000 Assistant Professor vacancies. The TRB must grant a maximum of 15 weightage marks to guest lecturers based on years of service and provide age relaxation as per Dr. K. Ragu. The new notification must be issued within six months, and guest lecturers must not be terminated until the selection process is complete. The regularization process under G.O.(Ms).No.56 is terminated.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Regularization Is Not a Right, But a Policy Discretion
- Practitioners must advise clients that long service alone does not create a legal right to regularization.
- Courts will not enforce executive policies as binding obligations if they conflict with constitutional recruitment norms.
- Any claim for regularization must be grounded in a prior, constitutionally compliant appointment process.
Open Competitive Recruitment Is Non-Negotiable
- All public appointments, including those for teaching positions, must begin with state-wide public advertisement.
- Selection through internal committees or walk-in interviews without standardized evaluation will not satisfy Article 14.
- Government departments must ensure that recruitment rules are followed from inception, not amended retroactively.
Experience Can Be Recognized Without Compromising Merit
- The Court’s approval of 15 marks of experience weightage sets a precedent for balancing equity and merit.
- States may grant age relaxation and experience-based marks in competitive exams for long-serving contractual employees, provided the core process remains open and competitive.
- This approach avoids discrimination while preserving the integrity of the selection system.
Procedural Compliance Trumps Administrative Convenience
- Administrative exigencies cannot justify bypassing constitutional safeguards.
- Courts will not validate irregular appointments simply because they have persisted for years.
- Public institutions must proactively fill vacancies through lawful means rather than relying on ad hoc appointments.
The Burden of Proof Lies with the State
- The State bears the burden of proving that its recruitment process is transparent, merit-based, and compliant with Articles 14 and 16.
- Failure to maintain proper records or issue public notifications will invalidate any subsequent regularization attempt.
- Departments must document and publish all recruitment criteria at the outset of any process.
