Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Alka Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 April, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
WRIT PETITION No.41830 OF 2025
DR. ALKA YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Kumar Mishra - learned counsel and Shri Ajay
Bhargava- learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Sohit Mishra - learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No.41556 OF 2025
DR. KALPANA SHRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Kumar Mishra - learned counsel and Shri Ajay
Bhargava- learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Sohit Mishra - learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No.40637 OF 2025
DR. MADHUP SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS
2
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Kumar Mishra - learned counsel and Shri Ajay
Bhargava- learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Sohit Mishra - learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No.40794 OF 2025
DR. PANKAJ SAHU AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Kumar Mishra - learned counsel and Shri Ajay
Bhargava- learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Sohit Mishra - learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Reserved on : 17/04/2026
Delivered on : 27/04/2026
ORDER
1. The petitioners, in this batch of writ petitions, are working as Guest Faculty in various Government Autonomous colleges on the post of Assistant Professors in different faculties. They are aggrieved by posting, by way of transfer, of private respondents in the respondent- College and their consequent fall out.
2. The facts and legal position to be discussed in these cases are 3 similar. The order impugned in these petitions is also same. Therefore, for purposes of convenience, the facts are taken from W.P. No.41830/2025 filed by Dr. Alka Yadav and others.
3. The petitioners in this writ petition have challenged order dated 08/10/2025 whereby the private respondents have been posted as Assistant Professor in respondent no.4- College (hereinafter referred to as 'College') and the petitioners have been declared fallen out. They have, therefore, prayed for cancellation of posting of private respondents in the College. The petitioners also challenged order dated 09/10/2025, 11/10/2025 & 14/10/2025, whereby they have been declared fallen out. They also pray for a direction to the respondents to permit them to continue as Guest Faculty in College upto their contract period 30/06/2026.
4. The petitioners claim that they are working as Guest Faculty in various streams in the College for about ten years. The details of their working in respondent no.4/college is given as under:-
SL. Name of the Subject Qualificati Experience Disabiliti No. Petitioner on es 1 Dr. Pankaj Sahu Commerce Ph.D. 8 years Left Leg OBC 50% Disabled 1 Kidney missing another is working Only 40% working 2 Dr. Divya Pathak Commerce Ph.D 10 years 3 Dr. Deepali Commerce Ph.D 18 years Agrawal 4 Dr. Seema Hindi Ph.D with 15 years Sharma EWS NET and SET 5 Dr. Seema Pathak Hindi Ph.D 8 years EWS 4
5. By way of order dated 30/06/2025, cumulatively filed as Annexure- P/4, the petitioners' tenure as Guest Faculty in College, was extended for academic session 2025-26 and the same is to continue upto 30/06/2025.
6. The private respondent no.5 to 7 are regularly appointed on the post of Assistant Professors in various streams. They were earlier posted in different Colleges and vide order dated 17/12/2024 (Annexure -P/6), they were re-deployed and posted for a period of two months in the respondent College. The period of their re-deployment was extended vide order dated 31/03/2025 and lastly vide order dated 14/08/2025.
7. The Government of Madhya Pradesh through its Higher Education Department passed the impugned order dated 08/10/2025 whereby as many as 535 incumbents working on the post of Assistant Professors in various Colleges were transferred and posted in the Prime Minister College of Excellence and Government Autonomous Colleges. The private respondents have been posted in respondent College. As a result of their posting and joining in respondent College, the petitioners have been declared fallan out vide order dated 09/10/2025, 11/10/2025 & 14/10/2025. Consequent to their fall out, they have been assigned duties in various other Colleges wherein the petitioners have already joined.
8. Challenging the impugned order dated 08/10/2025 and orders of fall out of the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have a right to continue as Guest Faculty in respondent College upto 30/06/2025 as per orders dated 30/06/2025 (Annexure- P/4). It is his submission that the impugned order dated 08/10/2025 has been passed with malafide intentions only to deprive the petitioners of their employments. Learned counsel points out that the private respondents were already working in respondent College since 17/12/2024 which shows that the petitioners as also the private respondents can continue to 5 work in respondent College. He further submits that as per the Apex Court judgment in the case of Manish Gupta Vs. State of M.P. & others passed in Civil Appeal No.3084-3088/2022, the petitioners cannot be removed unless the regular appointee joins on their posts. As per his submissions, respondents have devised a noble idea of removing the petitioners by first re-deploying the regular incumbents in respondent College and thereafter, by giving them regular posting in the name of transfer. It is his submission that the posts are lying vacant in respondent College and the petitioners as also private respondents can together work in the College.
9. The learned counsel also submitted that as per their appointment orders dated 30/06/2025, the petitioners have right to continue upto 30/06/2026, therefore, declaring them fallen out in mid-session is not only arbitrary but is illegal. It is further submitted that looking to the student strength in respondent College, the requirement of Assistant Professors in College cannot be denied or disputed. Respondents are duty bound to implement and execute the provisions of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009. Therefore, on this count also, the removal of the petitioners from respondent College is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel, thus, prays for interference by this Court.
10. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State supported the impugned action of the respondents. As per his submission, a policy decision was taken by the Higher Education Department to post the best talent in Prime Minister College of Excellence as also in Government Autonomous Colleges. The guidelines to search out such talent is laid down in circular dated 05/08/2024 (Annexure-P/5). The private respondents have, thus, been selected on the basis of their merit for their posting in respondent College. Learned Government Advocate further submits that as many as 535 Assistant Professors including the 6 private respondents have been transferred and posted in various Prime Minister College of Excellence and Govt. Autonomous Colleges and, therefore, it cannot be said that any action has been taken with malafide intention. The entire action is taken for the betterment of the students and to achieve the object of quality education.
11. Learned Government Advocate further submits that the petitioners are working as Guest Faculty in respondent College. They have no right to remain on the post if a regular employee is appointed or/transferred on their place. It is his submission that as per circular dated 05/10/2023, when a regular employee joins on the post, the Guest Faculty is required to be declared as fallen out. He submitted that the private respondents have already joined in respondent College and therefore, fall out of the petitioners is inevitable and the same is just and proper. The orders are in consonance with circular dated 05/10/2023. He also submitted that the petitioners have not challenged circular dated 05/10/2023 and/or circular dated 05/08/2024. Learned Government Government submitted that after declaration of their fall out, the petitioners have already joined in other Colleges and therefore, no grievance survives in the present petition.
12. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
13. The fact that the Government is obliged to take effective measures to maintain the quality education in the schools/colleges in the State cannot be disputed or denied. It is apt to refer to the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Devesh Sharma v. Union of India reported in (2023)18 SCC 339 as under:-
"22. Free and compulsory education for children becomes meaningless if we make compromise on its "quality". We must recruit the best qualified teachers. A good teacher is the first assurance of "quality" education in a school. Any compromise 7 on the qualification of teachers would necessarily mean a compromise on the "quality" of education. Jacques Barzun, the American educationalist and historian, in his seminal work Teacher in America, says "teaching is not a lost art, but the regard for it is a lost tradition" [Barzun, Jacques. "Profession:
Teacher". Teacher in America, published by Little Brown 7 Co. in association with Atlantic Monthly Press, 1945, pp. 3-13.]. Though this comment was for the state of higher education in America, it is equally relevant here on the treatment of Primary education in our country, as it emerges from the facts before us.
*** *** ***
47. We have seen so far that the need for "quality"
and meaningful primary education was emphasized by the legislature as well as by the academic authority all throughout. In primary education, any compromise on "quality" of education would mean going against the very mandate of Article 21-A and the Act. The value of Primary education can never be overstated."
14. The aforequoted observations of Apex Court, though related to primary education in schools, however the same are equally relevant in case of higher education.
15. The issues emerging out of services of Guest Faculty members are not new to Courts. The Apex Court in the case of Manish Gupta (supra) has issued following directions in relation to the Guest Faculties in para 16 as under:-
"16. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
A. The appeals are partly allowed.
B. The impugned judgment and order dated 8th February, 2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench in Writ Appeal No.386 of 2016 along with companion matters is quashed and set aside; C. The judgment and order dated 29th September, 8 2016 passed by learned single judge of the High Court is modified as under:
(i) The writ petitioners- appellants herein would be entitled to continue on their respective posts till they are replaced by regularly selected candidates;
(ii) The writ petitioners - appellants herein would be continued on their respective posts provided that a sufficient number of students are available for the particular course(s) for which the writ petitioners - appellants herein are appointed.
(iii) The writ petitioners - appellants herein would be entitled to honorarium at the rate of Rs.1,000/-
per hour as is being paid to them presently."
16. Pursuant to the aforementioned directions of Apex Court, the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh framed guidelines for engagement/re-engagement of Guest Faculty members. The earlier circular issued in this regard is superseded by prevalent circular dated 05/10/2023. It is not disputed by parties that the engagement/re-engagement of the Guest Faculty and their fall out is governed by this circular. Reading directions issued in Mahesh Gupta and the circular dated 05/10/2023, it is evident that as and when a regular incumbent joins on the post, the Guest Faculty is required to vacate the post and is to be declared fall out. His re-engagement is to be done as per circular dated 05/10/2023.
17. For achieving its goal of maintaining quality education for betterment of the students, the Government of Madhya Pradesh through its Higher Education Department formulated a policy vide circular dated 05/08/2024. The object of this policy is to post the best talent in 55 Prime Minister Colleges of Excellence and 13 Government Autonomous Colleges in the State on the post of Principal/Professors/Associate Professors and Assistant Professors. Such postings are intended to be made after assessing respective merits of the candidate. Clause 8 of this circular provides for the procedure for inviting applications from the 9 interested candidates. Clause 3 thereof prescribes the selection criteria which includes the assessment of previous years ACRs and the interview to be conducted by the committee, besides possessing requisite qualifications for the post. Clause 4, thereafter, prescribes the procedure for posting of the selected candidates. The policy framed vide this circular is not questioned by petitioners. Moreso, this circular is already upheld by this Court in the case of Prantiya Shaskiya Mahavidyalayeen Pradhyapak Sangh & ors. vs. State of M.P. & ors. in W.P. 20865/2024.
18. It is, thus, seen that purpose of framing policy vide circular dated 05/08/2024 is to select and post the best Professors/Associate Professors/Assistant Professors in the Prime Minister Colleges of Excellence and the Government Autonomous Colleges.
19. In furtherance of this policy, initially vide order dated 17/12/2026 (Annexure- P/6), as many as 616 incumbents were re-deployed for a period of two months including the private respondents in various Prime Minister Colleges of Excellence and Govt. Autonomous Colleges. The private respondents were re-deployed in respondent College. This re- deployment was extended from time to time and was lastly extended on 14/08/2025. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 08/10/2025 (Annexure- P/1) came to be passed wherein Assistant Professors are regularly transferred and posted in various PM Colleges of Excellence and Government Autonomous Colleges. The private respondents have been posted in respondent College. Thus, it is seen that the posting of private respondents in respondent College is in furtherance of the policy decision taken by the Government vide circular dated 05/08/2024.
20. The main contention of the petitioners is that since 17/12/2024, the petitioners and the private respondents both were working in respondent College which shows that there is requirement of both the petitioners and 10 private respondents is the College. To meet out the submissions, learned Government Advocate referred to averments made in paragraph 5.6 of the reply and submitted that the private respondents were initially re-deployed in respondent College. However, there substantive posting remained in there original colleges and they were paid salary from their earlier Colleges. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondents were holding any post in respondent College by virtue of their re-deployment. It is only by way of impugned order dated 08/10/2025, respondents have been regularly posted. Thus, the explanation offered by the respondents is found to be just and proper. Needless to emphasize, it is for the employer/department to assess the work requirement in a particular college and deploy its staff accordingly. The petitioners cannot be allowed to say that respondents should continue both the petitioners and private respondents in respondent College.
21. The petitioners' counsel also submitted that the petitioners have right to continue upto 30/06/2026 as per their order of appointment dated 30/06/2025. This would have been accepted if the private respondents are not posted in respondent College. The Apex Court also in the case of Manish Gupta (supra) has held that the Guest Faculty has a right to continue so long as a regular incumbent is not posted on his place. Thus, when the private respondents have been regularly posted in the College, the petitioners cannot claim to continue upto 30/06/2026 in this College itself. As stated by learned Government Advocate, the petitioners have been assigned work in other Colleges and they have already joined.
22. The learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that the impugned order of transferring private respondents on petitioners' place is malafide action on the part of respondents. However, such a contention is apparently not acceptable. It is seen that as many as 535 Assistant 11 Professors have been transferred and posted in various PM Colleges of Excellence and Govt. Autonomous Colleges. This has been done in furtherance of a policy decision taken in the interest of students vide circular dated 05/08/2024. Had it been a case of one or two incumbents, the argument raised by petitioners' counsel could have been considered. However, in the facts of this case, this Court do not find any malafide in the action of respondents. The petitioners have already been accommodated in other Colleges.
23. Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 08/10/2025 has been passed in furtherance of a policy decision taken by the Government and is not found to be malafide or illegal in any manner. Accordingly, the fall out orders of petitioners are also found to be just and proper. Consequently, the challenge to the impugned orders is not accepted. The petitions fail and are dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
rahul Digitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
RAHUL SINGH AT GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82a b676d0cde4dee473fe77953f5, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID - 7063520, PARIHAR postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=0275c4f803f94c47998be5c534e21bded91 0fd4ab9d159b55575e814d05b2eed, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2026.04.29 19:23:54 +05'30'