Case Background
The petitioner is a faculty member associated with L.N. Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social Change, Patna (the Institute).
She was first engaged on 08.02.2008 as a Faculty Member in Marketing Management on a contractual basis following an advertisement published in 2007. That advertisement, marked as Annexure-1, was for Senior Guest Faculty/Guest Faculty, and it contained a stipulation that the initial six-month period could be extended in special circumstances.
Her services were extended from time to time. An Office Order dated 09.10.2010 (No. 1031/10) extended her appointment “until regular appointment of faculty members”, along with increased remuneration.
On 01.09.2011, the Institute issued a new advertisement for fresh contractual appointments. The petitioner applied, was called for interview, but before any result was declared, her services along with those of five other adjunct faculty were terminated through Memo No. 540/12 dated 03.10.2012.
She challenged the termination by filing C.W.J.C. No. 2872 of 2013, later withdrawn. She then filed a more comprehensive writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 23378 of 2018. That petition was disposed of after the Court noted that she had been allowed to continue as Adjunct Faculty Member. The Court observed that she should not be replaced by any other ad-hoc engagement unless there was a plausible reason. These earlier orders were annexed as Annexures-5 and 6 in the present case.
While she continued to discharge her duties, the Bihar State University Service Commission (BSUSC) issued Advertisement No. BSUSC/LNMI-01/2024 for recruitment to the posts of Professor/Assistant Professor (Management/Computer) in the Institute.
The petitioner, claiming to be eligible, applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Management). She submitted her application with self-attested documents and sought a work experience certificate from the Director of the Institute, as such a certificate was mandatory under the recruitment process.
The advertisement gave preference marks for teaching experience. Clause 3(C)(iii) prescribed that candidates with at least five years’ teaching experience after acquiring a Master’s degree, on regular or contractual basis as Assistant Professor, would get marks. Clause 5.2(B)(iii) further provided a maximum of 25 marks (5 marks per year) for satisfactory contractual service as Assistant Professor already working in the Institute. A special note under Clause 3(C)(iii) said that Assistant Professors on contract in the Institute would get the benefit of AICTE Regulation 2019, Rules 7.4 and 7.5.
The petitioner appeared in the interview. Later, a merit list dated 14.05.2025 was published, in which her name did not appear. On filing an application under the Right to Information Act, she was informed that she had not been found eligible for selection because she did not possess the teaching experience required under Clause 3(C)(iii).
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner approached the Patna High Court in this writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 14317 of 2025) seeking mainly two reliefs.
First, she sought a writ of certiorari to quash the merit list dated 14.05.2025 for Assistant Professor (Management) posts under Notification No. BSUSC/LNMI-01/2024.
Second, she prayed that the respondents be directed to treat her as an “incumbent faculty member” and extend to her the benefit of AICTE Rules 7.4 and 7.5 and Clause 5.2(B)(iii) of the advertisement, thereby granting her experience marks.
Her senior counsel argued that she had 16 years of service with good attendance and that the respondents had illegally denied her the experience benefit promised in the advertisement.
Relying on Clause 5.2(B)(iii), learned counsel submitted that a maximum of 25 marks, at 5 marks per year, had to be given for satisfactory service rendered by an Assistant Professor working on a contractual basis in the Institute. If her teaching experience had been counted, her score would have exceeded the cut-off.
Counsel highlighted that the advertisement expressly promised the benefit of AICTE Rules 7.4 and 7.5 to such incumbent faculty. She contended that the merit list was illegal and unsustainable for failing to apply those AICTE Rules and the specific clauses of the advertisement.
The petitioner further pleaded that the denial of experience benefit, despite her long and continuous service, was arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and also tainted by mala fides.
To strengthen the claim that she was a contractual or adjunct faculty, not merely a guest faculty, her counsel relied on her appointment letter (Annexure-2) and the earlier order in C.W.J.C. No. 23378 of 2018, where the Institute had referred to her as an Adjunct Faculty Member.
Her counsel also argued, in the alternative, that even if she were to be treated as a guest teacher, guest teachers and contract teachers discharge the same teaching duties. Referring to past High Court and Supreme Court decisions, she argued that denying 5 marks per year for teaching experience to guest teachers was discriminatory and violative of Article 14.
A certificate issued by the Registrar of the Institute on 28.12.2024, produced with a supplementary affidavit, showed that she had been engaged as Guest Faculty on per class basis from 2012 to 2024.
On the other hand, counsel for BSUSC explained the recruitment process. For 24 posts of Assistant Professor (Management), 79 candidates appeared for the provisional interview. After conducting interviews in accordance with the advertisement, BSUSC prepared a final select list category-wise and sent recommendations for appointment to the department.
Regarding the petitioner, BSUSC stated that she had submitted two experience certificates:
First, she showed experience as Guest Faculty in the department of Advertisement, Sales Promotion and Sales Management from 01.11.2006 to 07.02.2008 (1 year 3 months 7 days). This did not meet Clause 3(C)(iii) because it was guest faculty experience and not as Assistant Professor on regular/contractual basis.
Second, she showed work as Assistant Professor (Management) as Guest Faculty and Adjunct Faculty from 08.02.2008 to 10.11.2012 (4 years 9 months 2 days), which was less than the minimum five years prescribed in Clause 3(C)(iii). The certificate from the Institute itself described her as Guest Faculty.
Thus, according to BSUSC, she lacked the minimum qualifying teaching experience required for award of experience marks and was therefore ineligible.
Counsel for the Institute supported this position. Referring to Advertisement No. 1/2024 and AICTE Regulations, 2019, he relied particularly on Regulation 2.25, which governs counting of past service for direct recruitment.
Regulation 2.25(f) states that previous appointments can be counted as past service only if the appointment was not as guest faculty for any duration. For ad-hoc or temporary service to be counted, several conditions must be met: the service must exceed one year; appointment must be through a duly constituted selection committee; the incumbent must be selected to a permanent post in continuation; artificial breaks should not prejudice the employee; the gross emoluments must match at least the initial salary of a regular Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/Professor; and the terms and conditions must clearly record the period and nature of experience.
The Institute submitted that since the petitioner had been working as Guest Faculty, it could not issue an experience certificate in terms of Regulation 2019. It also informed the Court that a similar case by some guest faculty (C.W.J.C. No. 19391 of 2024) had already been dismissed by a Bench of the Patna High Court, which held that no weightage was to be given to guest faculty under Clause 2.25 of the AICTE Regulations.
Counsel for AICTE adopted the arguments of BSUSC and the Institute.
Justice Harish Kumar then examined Clause 3(C)(iii) of the advertisement in detail. The clause required a minimum of five years’ teaching experience after a Master’s degree on regular or contractual basis as Assistant Professor in any university, government institute, or AICTE-approved autonomous institute. The note beneath it extended AICTE Regulation 2019 Rules 7.4 and 7.5 to Assistant Professors working on contract in this Institute.
The Court pointed out that the Institute is governed by rules framed under the Bihar Private Educational Institution (Taking Over) Act, 1987—specifically, the Lalit Narayan Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social Change Institute Rules, 2017, as amended in 2024. Rule 10(1) mandates that for teaching posts, AICTE/UGC standards as directed by the State Government must be followed.
After reproducing Regulation 2.25(f), the Court held that counting of past services for direct recruitment clearly excludes guest faculty for any duration. Even for ad-hoc or temporary service to be counted, all the conditions listed in Regulation 2.25(f) must be satisfied together. If any requirement is not met, past service cannot be counted.
The Court next examined AICTE Regulations 7.4 and 7.5 and found that they deal with nomenclature of degrees and incumbent faculty with previous qualifications. The Court held that they were not really relevant to the issue of counting past service for direct recruitment under Regulation 2.25.
The petitioner had relied on three precedents: Asim Kumar Bose v. Union of India (AIR 1989 SC 509), Krishna Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar (2022 (3) PLJR 87), and Sandeep Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar (2024 (3) PLJR 5).
In Asim Kumar Bose, the Supreme Court held that teaching experience as a Specialist with ex officio designation of Associate Professor in a teaching hospital could count as teaching experience, as the rules did not distinguish between regular appointment and such ex officio posts. The Patna High Court distinguished this case because, in the present matter, AICTE Regulation 2019 expressly excluded guest faculty for any duration.
In Krishna Mohan Singh, the High Court had upheld a clarification regarding acceptable experience certificates and refused to interfere with the recruitment process, observing that the State University Commission had accepted the clarification. The Court noted that this case did not support the petitioner’s claim.
In Sandeep Kumar Jha, the issue related to teaching appointments under a BPSC advertisement and denial of experience weightage to guest teachers. There, the Court recognised that guest and contract teachers discharge the same duties but held that giving extra marks is a policy decision, and since the recruitment was over and no such policy existed, the Court only directed the State Government to take a final decision on awarding such marks in future. Again, it did not directly assist the petitioner, especially in light of the binding AICTE Regulation excluding guest faculty experience.
Coming to the core factual question, the Court held that there was no dispute that the initial 2007 advertisement was for Senior Guest Faculty/Guest Faculty. Although the petitioner’s appointment letter omitted the words “Guest Faculty” and used “contract basis”, and later documents used the expression “Adjunct Faculty Member”, the origin of her appointment remained that advertisement.
Therefore, the Court concluded that she could not be treated as an adjunct faculty member for the purpose of counting experience as per AICTE Regulation 2.25(f). In the Court’s view, she never worked as a contractual employee on temporary or ad-hoc basis in the manner contemplated by the Regulation.
The Court also added that even if it assumed she had served as a contractual employee on ad-hoc or temporary basis for more than one year, she still would not satisfy all the conditions under Regulation 2.25(f). Hence, her past service could not be counted for direct recruitment.
Finally, the Court held that the decisions cited by the petitioner did not cover her case and that Regulation 2019 unambiguously said that guest faculty service of any duration cannot be counted as past service for direct recruitment.
On this reasoning, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, leaving the merit list and recruitment process intact.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment has important implications for guest faculty and adjunct teachers in Bihar and elsewhere.
First, it clarifies that, where AICTE Regulation 2019 applies, experience as guest faculty will not be counted as past teaching service for direct recruitment, regardless of how long the person has taught.
Second, it shows that even if an institute internally refers to someone as “adjunct” or “contractual”, the original terms of engagement and the governing regulations will decide whether that service qualifies for experience marks.
Third, candidates cannot rely only on general arguments of equal work or fairness when a specific regulation, like AICTE Regulation 2.25, clearly excludes certain categories such as guest faculty.
For teachers working on a per-class or guest faculty basis, this decision underlines that they may not get experience weightage in AICTE-regulated recruitments unless the regulations are changed or a specific policy decision is taken.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the petitioner’s long teaching service as guest/adjunct faculty in the Institute could be counted as qualifying teaching experience for award of preference marks under the BSUSC advertisement and AICTE Regulations.
Answer: No. The Court held that AICTE Regulation 2.25(f) expressly excludes guest faculty service of any duration from being counted as past service for direct recruitment, and the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions for counting ad-hoc or temporary service. - Issue: Whether the merit list dated 14.05.2025 for Assistant Professor (Management) posts was illegal for not extending AICTE Rules 7.4 and 7.5 and Clause 5.2(B)(iii) benefits to the petitioner.
Answer: No. The Court held that Rules 7.4 and 7.5 were not directly relevant to counting past service, that the advertisement correctly applied AICTE Regulation 2019, and that the petitioner was rightly treated as ineligible for experience marks. - Issue: Whether denial of experience marks to the petitioner violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Answer: No. Since the recruitment followed AICTE Regulation 2019, which validly excluded guest faculty experience, and the petitioner did not meet the regulatory criteria, there was no arbitrariness or discrimination warranting constitutional interference.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Asim Kumar Bose v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 509.
- Krishna Mohan Singh & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2022 (3) PLJR 87.
- Sandeep Kumar Jha & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2024 (3) PLJR 5.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14317 of 2025
Case Title: Dr. Mamta Kumari v. Bihar State University Service Commission (BSUSC) & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Date of Judgment: 11-11-2025
Citation: 2026 (1) PLJR 1
Advocates:
For the petitioner: Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, Senior Advocate; Mr. Arya Achint, Advocate; Mr. Amar Shakti, Advocate.
For BSUSC: Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate.
For the Institute (L.N. Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social Change): Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocate.
For AICTE: Mrs. Archana, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging recruitment merit list and denial of experience weightage in appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Management).
Link to Judgment: Full text of judgment on Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
