Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Akhilesh Tripathi vs The Chairman Of The Tribunal Rajiv ... on 18 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58868
1 WP-13406-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 13406 of 2024
DR AKHILESH TRIPATHI
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TRIBUNAL RAJIV GANDHII
PROUDYOGIKI VISHWAVIDYALAYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akhilesh Tripathi - petitioner in person.
Shri Virat Shrivastava-Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2.
Shri Sanjay Agrawal-Senior Advocate with Shri Akshay Khandelwal-Advocate for the respondent No. 3.
(O R D E R) (Reserved on : 09/10/2025) (Pronounced on :18/11/2025) By way of this petition, challenge is made to order Annexure P/20 whereby the appeal of the petitioner against termination of services submitted vide Annexure P/2 dated 28.01.2012, has been rejected on 22.04.2024, on the ground that since the petitioner has not been appointed in accordance with the College Code (Statute 30), framed by Respondent No. 2, Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya , (RGPV for short), therefore, appeal to the Tribunal of the University filed under Clause 36 of the said Code is not maintainable.
2. The present matter is having a chequered history. It was pointed out by the petitioner appearing in person that he was appointed in the Respondent No. 3 institution, initially vide order dated 28.06.2008, (Annexure P/1) on the post of Lecturer in Pharmacy and later on vide order Annexure P/2, dated 28.01.2012, his services were terminated without Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-11-2025 10:49:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58868 2 WP-13406-2024 assigning any reason by giving one month's notice period salary. He had earlier challenged the said termination before this Court in WP No. 7537/ 2012, and the petition had been allowed vide order Annexure P/5, dated 04.12.2017, but later on writ appeal against the said order was allowed vide order dated 05-02-2020 passed in WA No. 1004 of 2018 on the ground that writ petition before this Court against a private unaided College is not maintainable. Undisputedly, the said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also, but the said challenge did not meet with any success.
3. It is further argued that thereafter the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal in terms of Clause 36 of College Code (Statute 30) before the Appellate Authority of the University. The Appellate Authority kept sitting tight on the appeal of petitioner and then he filed WP No. 9117 of 2023, which was decided on 08.05.2023, directing the Authority to decide the appeal within 30 days of receipt of the order and then the said appeal was rejected vide order Annexure P/16, dated 16.05.2023, mentioning therein that since his case has been rejected and dismissed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore there is no point in hearing his appeal and the appeal is not maintainable.
4. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in WP 13440 of 2023, which was decided on 16.08.2023 and this court held that the appeal was maintainable and it be decided on merits because the earlier controversy which got raised up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to maintainability Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-11-2025 10:49:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58868 3 WP-13406-2024 of the writ petition and no other issue was decided by the Division Bench and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, hence, the Appellate Authority can still decide the appeal on merits.
5. It is pointed out that thereafter the Tribunal took the decision vide Annexure P/20, which has been communicated to the petitioner and the appellate authority has held that since the initial appointment of the petitioner was not after following the provisions of Statute 30, therefore remedy of appeal is not available to him as per Statute 30 and on this ground the appeal has now been dismissed which is under challenge.
6. It is argued by the petitioner that he had no control over the manner in which he was appointed and it was obligatory for the Institution to have constituted the selection committee. The petitioner was under
impression that he is being appointed by following the process. It is contended that as per the declaration given by Secretary of the Foundation Society vide Annexure P/26, a chart has been annexed thereto in which the name of petitioner is at serial number 10 and he is mentioned as regular staff because the said chart relates to regular staff only. It is argued that at page 301 which is part of the same Annexure P/26, the College has disclosed that there are no temporary or contractual or part time employees and only regular employees/faculties are there at the College. It is further contended that in the form submitted to the AICTE for continuation of affiliation/ recognition in Para 5 as available at page 333 of the petition, it has been declared by the College that the faculty has been recruited after setting up the Recruitment Committee. By further referring to page 350 of the petition, it is Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-11-2025 10:49:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58868 4 WP-13406-2024 argued that in Para (ii) of the questionnaire it has been disclosed that all 32 faculty members are approved by the University and by the Government. It is therefore, contended that on one hand the College has been declaring the petitioner to be part of 32 regular faculty members and duly appointed by a constituted selection committee but now before the University, inconsistent plea was taken and the University even accepted that plea which was contrary to the statutory declarations being made to the University and to the AICTE by the respondent No. 3 College. It is therefore urged that the respondent No. 3 College has been adopting all sorts of elusive and mischievous practices against the petitioner only to justify termination of services of the petitioner by hook or crook.
7. It is further urged that the Colleges affiliated to RGPV are subjected to Statute - 30 (College Code) and in this statute there are only 3 types of teachers i.e. part time, temporary or permanent. The petitioner is not a part time or temporary teacher and therefore he is a permanent teacher and clause 24 (2) of College Code relates to deemed confirmation in services and thus once the probation period of 1 year as was provided vide Annexure P/1 came to an end, there was a deemed confirmation of services of petitioner as no order extending probation was ever issued.
8. It is further urged that the respondent No. 3 as well as the University have been adopting to all types of mischievous practices to deny justice to the petitioner and this is the second time that the appeal has been rejected on frivolous grounds because the authorities know fully well that on Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-11-2025 10:49:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58868 5 WP-13406-2024 merits their order has no legs to stand and on merits the order cannot be sustained and justified because it is a non-speaking order which is founded on misconduct and therefore it is prayed to set aside the order Annexure P/20 so also the order Annexure P/2 which was order of termination of services of petitioner. It is also argued that while the case of a poor and helpless teacher is being rejected on ground that his appointment was not by following Statute-30/College Code, but despite that the affiliation to the College is being extended year by year, though admittedly, there is not a single teacher in the College, who has been appointed by following procedure under the College Code.
9. Per contra, it is vehemently contended by the Senior counsel for the respondent No. 3 that as per clause 12 (14) of College Code, Governing Body is the appointing authority as well as the disciplinary authority but in the present case the appointment order of the petitioner was issued by Secretary of the foundation society and the termination order was also issued by the same person, therefore it is argued that the appointment of the petitioner was not by competent authority under College Code and therefore it was not an appointment under the College Code. It is further contended that the petitioner would be entitled to protection of College Code only if it was made by authority competent under the said Code and by following the procedure prescribed under the said Code i.e. after issuing advertisement, constituting selection committee, considering competitive merits of candidates, etc. However since in the present case no selection process took place, therefore the petitioner was a back door appointee and he cannot seek Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-11-2025 10:49:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58868 6 WP-13406-2024 protection of Statute 30/College Code.
10. Heard.
11. It is an umpteenth round of litigation by the petitioner because a number of petitions have been filed by him in the matter. The first round of litigation was against the termination order Annexure P/2 which ultimately went up to the Hon'ble Apex Court and it was affirmed by the said court that the writ petition against the respondent No. 3 College was not maintainable. The petitioner though was given liberty to approach the Civil Court by the Division bench, but since a statutory remedy under Clause 36 of College Code was available, therefore he had availed the said remedy. It was also argued before this Court by the respondents that since the Division Bench vide order Annexure P/7 had only granted liberty to approach the Civil Court, therefore the petitioner could not have approached the appellate authority. In the considered opinion of this Court, that the said issue stood settled in WP No. 13440 of 2023 because earlier the Appellate Authority under the College Code had rejected the appeal of petitioner on that very ground and this Court had set aside that order and directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law. If the Division Bench gave liberty to the petitioner to approach Civil Court and held that the petition is not maintainable but did not express any opinion about availability of another statutory remedy before the appellate authority of RGPV, there is no binding ratio or even obiter of this Court in WA No. 1004 of 2018, that appeal before the appellate authority under College Code is not maintainable. If the respondent No. 3 felt so, then it could have filed Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-11-2025 10:49:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58868 7 WP-13406-2024 appeal against the order Annexure P/17 wherein this Court had directed the said authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner as per law after the Appellate Authority had rejected the appeal on the ground of maintainability in view of earlier orders passed by this Court confirmed up to the Supreme Court. The appeal was therefore maintainable before the appellate authority and the order of Division Bench Annexure P/7 could not have come in the way of the petitioner in filing appeal before the appellate authority which was also subsequently held by this Court vide Annexure P/17 but the point was again urged before this Court by respondent No. 3, therefore, it is once again discarded.
12. The termination order of the petitioner does not mention any reason for his discharge, only mentioning that the services are not required. The termination order is in the following terms :
"You had been providing your services to GRKIST (Pharmacy) since 12 June 2008 as Lecturer.
The management has decided to stop your services w.e.f. 01 Feb. 2012 and the Society will remain indebted to you for your contributions. We wish you & your family Happy times and Good health . We hope, you will be in regular contact with us. Should you require any assistance, please feel free to contact us."
13. When this order was put to challenge in the earlier round of litigation in WP 7357 of 2012, then the respondent No. 3 had taken a plea that the petitioner was not a permanent employee and that his performance was not satisfactory and he did not improve despite giving show cause notices and warning etc. The following plea was made in para 5 of reply in WP 7357 of 2012 :
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-11-2025 10:49:12NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58868 8 WP-13406-2024 "5. That, during the service period the performance of the petitioners was not satisfactory answering respondents given warning letters show cause notice and advised him to improved himself and maintain the proper protocol, but the petitioners did not improved themselves and continuously disobey the direction/order of the office concern. The copy of warming letter dated 31.7.2010, copy of warning letter dated 6.12.2010, and copy of show cause notice are filed as Annexure R/1, R/2 & R/3 respectively."
14. The respondent No. 3 in the earlier round of litigation took a plea that the termination of services of petitioner is by way of taking action against misconduct and it is because he did not improve despite giving warnings and to despite advise to maintain proper protocol and discipline, and used to disobey the directions of the supervisory officers. However, in the present petition no such plea is taken, but from the plea taken in earlier writ petition, it is clear that the real reason for termination of services is some misconduct of the petitioner, which has not been disclosed even in the reply filed in the earlier round of litigation, but a pleading was there that the petitioner was not behaving properly.
15. The petitioner was appointed on probation of 1 year vide order dated 28.06.2008 and as per clause 24(2) of the College Code- (Annexure P/22), it is clearly mentioned that if there is no extension of probation, then the probationer is deemed to have been confirmed in his appointment upon expiry of period of probation. The relevant clause is as under :
"(2) The work of the probationer is found to be unsatisfactory and he is not informed for the same by the Governing Body at least one month before the expiry of the probation period, the probationer shall be deemed to have been confirmed in his appointment on the expiry of the period of probation."
16. It is clear that in absence of any probation extension letter, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-11-2025 10:49:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58868 9 WP-13406-2024 services of petitioner stood automatically confirmed on completion of one year, i.e. on 28.06.2009 and therefore he cannot be stated to be a part timer or a temporary employee.
17. As per Clause 33 of College Code, the services of a teacher appointed after confirmation shall not be terminated except on the grounds of misconduct and without obtaining the approval of the Executive Council and it is further provided that no finding of misconduct can be given without holding inquiry in which a charge sheet is issued and opportunity is given to defend to the teacher, except in cases of physical or mental unfitness in which case the report of Medical Board shall be taken into consideration. Clause 33 is as under:-
"33. (1) The service of a teacher other than person appointed on temporary or part-time basis or on probation shall not be terminated after confirmation except on the following grounds and without the approval of the Executive Council.
(i) Misconduct including willful neglect of duty.
(ii) A Breach of the terms of the contract.
(iii) Physical or mental unfitness.
(iv) Incompetence provided that the plea of incompetence shall not be used against a teacher after two years of his confirmation.
(v) Abolition of the post with the prior approval of the Executive Council.
Provided that termination of service on any ground falling under (i) or (iv) above shall not be ordered without holding an inquiry in which the teacher is given a statement of charges against him and is afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
Provided also that action to terminate the service of a teacher on the ground of physical or mental unfitness shall not be taken except on the basis of a report of Medical Board of the State Government.
(2) Except where the services of a teacher are terminated on the ground of misconduct including neglect of duty or breach of the terms of the contract neither the Governing Body nor the teacher shall terminate the agreement except by giving to the other party three calendar month's notice or by paying to the other party a Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-11-2025 10:49:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58868 10 WP-13406-2024 sum equal to thrice the monthly salary which the teacher concerned is than earning. The period of notice shall not include the summer vacation or any part thereof."
18. The aforesaid provision bars termination except on the grounds of misconduct after confirmation, and even on the ground of misconduct, without conducting inquiry. However, in the present case though it was founded on misconduct but not even a show cause notice was given and even the termination order did not mention that it is founded on any misconduct. If the order is not founded on misconduct then the services could not be terminated at all, except on the ground of physical or mental unfitness and if it was founded on misconduct, then inquiry after issuing charge sheet was the mandatory requirement which, undisputedly has not been followed in the present case.
19. To get over these mandatory provisions of College Code, the college has vehemently contended before this court and also before the appellate authority that the petitioner's appointment was not as per College Code because the detailed procedure is provided in clause 21 and 22 of the College Code, that was not followed. Clause 21 contemplates for constituting selection committee and preparation of panel and clause 22 bars any appointment to a full time salaried teaching post without recommendation of the selection committee, except appointments made on part time posts. It is argued before this court that since the initial appointment of petitioner was in 2008 which is after enforcement of College Code, therefore the petitioner is not entitled to protection of College Code because his appointment was not by following the process laid down in the college Code. It was further Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-11-2025 10:49:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58868 11 WP-13406-2024 contended that as per clause 12(14), governing body is the competent authority for appointment and disciplinary action against the petitioner and in the present case since the appointment and termination, both are not by the Governing Body, therefore the petitioner cannot seek protection of college Code. It was further contended that the constitution of Governing Body is laid down in clause 12 of the college Code. In the present case though undisputedly the appointment and termination both are by the Secretary of the foundation society and it is indicated from the material available on record that no advertisement was issued nor any record of Selection Committee is available; but the question remains that to what extent the college can take benefit of its own lapses by keeping the service conditions of the teachers appointed by it in vacuum and whether it can give a tool to the College to resort to unfair practices.
20. A private institution governed by the provisions of College Code owes its existence to a specific statute and owes its affiliation to the University. A autonomous body registered under some Act and given certain powers and subjected to certain regulatory controls has to act within the sphere of that much authority given to it by such rules, regulations or statutes. Its position cannot be equated with position of a sovereign which has plenary powers in various matters.
21. The respondent No. 3 cannot argue that petitioner being in appointee without following selection process is an illegal and irregular appointee and cannot seek protection of College Code. The argument that can be made by the State Government in case of daily rated employments cannot be made by Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-11-2025 10:49:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58868 12 WP-13406-2024 a private College which is constituted under some enactments or statutes because the colleges do not have sovereign powers. The state may function through its functionaries spread over a large geographical area and working in a large or colossus hierarchy. However, in an institution like a private college, it cannot be inferred that what is done by one official is not in the notice or knowledge of the other authorities of the College. It cannot, unlike the State Government argue that a person engaged by a field officer would not bind the State Government. The college cannot argue that what is done by the Secretary of the foundation society would not bind the college because the petitioner continued working in the college for as many as 4 years and it cannot be inferred that the petitioner having been appointed by the Secretary of the foundation society, his appointment was not in the knowledge of the Governing body because the chairman of the Governing body is a member of foundation society as per clause 12 (1)(a) of the College Code.
22. Once the foundation society had duly appointed the petitioner and the Governing body is headed by a member or nominee of the foundation society, then it is clear that what has been done by the foundation society comes in knowledge of the Governing body and once the person continues in appointment for as many as 4 years, then an implied confirmation or approval of the Governing body has to be inferred because Governing body is headed by a representative/ nominee of the foundation society, though it may be having other members who are not part of the foundation society.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-11-2025 10:49:12NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58868 13 WP-13406-2024
23. The matter can be looked into from another angle. As already discussed above, a private college registered under or established under or approved under specified statutes or rules has to act within the sphere of those statutes or rules. Every appointment made by the college would therefore be deemed to be an appointment made under the College Code except it is an appointment made on temporary or part-time basis because College Code only contemplates three types of appointments as per clause 20(3). Other than College Code, there is no other enabling provision to make appointment for the purpose of seeking affiliation of the University.
24. The act of the College in showing the name of petitioner as a Teacher appointed with approval of the selection committee in all the statutory compliances made to the University and to the AICTE, further makes it clear that the Governing body is deemed to have approved the appointment of the petitioner, otherwise, his name would not have been shown in the statutory compliances in the list of teachers submitted to AICTE and to the University which have been discussed in detail in this order above and are to be found at page 302, 332 and 350 of the petition.
25. The College cannot argue for its own benefit that it did not comply the provisions of College Code in the matter of petitioner only so as to retain a tool with itself to adopt the principle of hire and fire against the petitioner and adopt the most unscrupulous practice as an employer by denying defined service conditions to the petitioner. If that be the position, then the Tribunal of the University ought to have recommended withdrawal Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-11-2025 10:49:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58868 14 WP-13406-2024 of recognition of the College, and stopped its immediate closure. Before this Court also, it was admitted by learned senior counsel Shri Sanjay Agrawal, that no teacher has been appointed in the College after following the procedure in the College Code.
26. Furthermore, the college court itself does not indicate anywhere that it will not apply to those employees of the College which have not been appointed by following the procedures contemplated under College Code. The College would have been at liberty to argue that the petitioner was not appointed by following the due process, if the petitioner had been discharged on that ground. However, the petitioner has been discharged without assigning any reason and the real reason was some misconduct and therefore the College cannot argue that petitioner's initial appointment was bad. However, this court has already come to conclusion that there was a deemed approval by the Governing body and the defect of appointment therefore gets wiped off.
27. so far as the question of maintainability of this petition is concerned which was also feebly argued before this court by the respondent No. 3, the present case is not a original writ petition but has been filed challenging the order of Appellate Authority and this court can always exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 or issue certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The question of maintainability of writ petition against a private unaided college does not arise in the present case, as this is not a petition seeking writ in original jurisdiction, but after exhausting the remedy before the Appellate Authority, and this Court can Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-11-2025 10:49:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58868 15 WP-13406-2024 pass any order that the Appellate Authority could pass, while exercising supervisory or Certiorari jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority Annexure P/20 cannot be allowed to be sustained.
28. Now it is to be considered whether to remand the matter to the Appellate Authority for a fresh round. If the previous conduct of the appellate authority is seen, firstly it refused to decide the appeal on the ground that the matter has been decided up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the petitioner came before this court and this court remanded the matter to the appellate authority and now the appellate authority has held that since the appointment was not as per College Code, therefore the petitioner cannot be granted any relief and the appeal is not tenable, and relegated the petitioner to the Governing Body of the college to address the grievance of the petitioner at the College level.
29. Looking to the past manner in which the appellate authority has been dealing with the case of petitioner, remand to the Appellate Authority once again would be a futile exercise and nothing else. The counsel for the respondent No. 3 was unable to justify the termination of petitioner and could only argue that since the petitioner is not appointed as per the College Code, therefore, there was no deemed confirmation and he is not entitled to protection of clause 33 of the college Code.
30. Since this Court has already held that the petitioner's appointment is deemed to be an appointment within the College Code and he is entitled to Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-11-2025 10:49:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58868 16 WP-13406-2024 protection of clause 33 and 24(2) of the College Code, therefore there is no utility in remanding the matter to the appellate authority.
31. Consequently, it is ordered that the order Annexure P/20, so also the order Annexure P/2 which it confirms, are set-aside. The petitioner is held entitled to be reinstated in service of the respondent No. 3 forthwith, with back wages only from the date of order Annexure P-20 (22.4.2024), but with continuity of service for the entire period.
32. The petition stands allowed with the aforesaid directions.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE MISHRA Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-11-2025 10:49:12