End of ‘patronage system’: Why court cited 1854 Macaulay report to quash regularisation of thousands of college lecturers

Rejecting the petitioners’ plea of regularisation and emphasising the transparency of appointments, the court said, “At least from the time the Macaulay Committee submitted its report in 1854, ‘Patronage System’ had lost its relevance and selection for candidates is based on thorough knowledge of the subject concerned and not on a superficial one.”

Justices R Suresh Kumar and V Lakshminarayanan said that students rely upon the teachers not only for their academic success but also for character development.

Noting that a good teacher fosters curiosity and encourages a student to continue on the path that is pointed out by the teacher, long after he/she has left the institution, and in some cases, till the end of their lives, the order underscored the significance of competent teachers in the system.

It further added that this court strongly deprecates the practice adopted by the State of Tamil Nadu in appointing guest lecturers to attend to the important function of teaching basic Arts and Science and Technology subjects to students. Lots of Courts’ time had been wasted on such litigation. The bench noted that the guest lecturers are rightly anguished on account of the state dragging its feet in making regular appointments.

‘Good teacher fosters curiosity and encourages’

• We have to point out that the present state of affairs has come about only on account of the failure of the State of Tamil Nadu in not going for a regular recruitment of Assistant Professors.
• Good teachers, as it is said, are architects of the future. Students spend more time with their teachers than with their parents.
• Teachers serve as a primary influence on a student. Students rely upon the teachers not only for their academic success but also for character development.
• They are not simple tools of knowledge transfer. They have to play the important role of a mentor and also be an example for their students to follow.
• It is the teachers who recognise the potential of the students. A good teacher fosters curiosity and encourages a student to continue on the path that is pointed out by the teacher, long after he/she has left the institution, and in some cases, till the end of their lives.

‘Regularisation can’t be claimed as matter of right’

• The manner of their selection was through a selection committee at the Collegiate level.
  It was not governed by any rules or regulations, as was and is being done in the recruitment process initiated by the TRB.
• Unless and until an open competitive examination is conducted, a fair opportunity would not be available to all the participants. The participants would not be facing a level playing field.
• If this Court were to accept the plea of the Guest Lecturers that, as they have been selected by the Committees at the college level, it amounts to an open competitive process, we would be diluting the principles which have been evolved by the Supreme Court through the years, calling upon institutions to follow a transparent and merit-based selection process.
• The purpose of having an open competitive process for public posts is that such a process ensures fairness, integrity and legality in the appointments of those being recruited to public posts.
• At this stage, we would like to point out the difference between regularisation and recruitment. Recruitment is a legal, formal, competitive method of entering service.
• Regularisation is at best a remedial measure adopted for those already working in a temporary or irregular capacity. Recruitment is a rule-based process of filling substantive vacancies.
• Regularisation is a process to confer permanent status on existing temporary or contractual staff, like guest lecturers.

• The goals of recruitment and regularisation also differ. In the case of recruitment, it is merit-based through an open competitive process, whereas regularisation aims to correct the irregular appointments made.
• Regularisation cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is hence that the Courts have consistently held that an appointment made without any sanctioned post or in complete violation of the rules cannot be regularised.

Case of regularisation of college lecturers

The case involved thousands of guest lecturers who had been appointed through various college-level selection committees and walk-in interviews over several years. In 2020, the state government issued an order proposing to regularise 1,146 guest lecturers through a special test or interview process.

In 2022, following the Supreme Court directive, the state government shifted its policy and issued new orders. These new orders mandated that recruitment for assistant professor posts be conducted through a written competitive examination administered by the TRB. This policy shift was challenged by the guest lectures, leading to a single-judge order quashing the 2022 orders and mandating regularisation under the 2020 order policy.