Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satendra Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
WRIT PETITION No.17066 OF 2021
DEVENDRA TIWARI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi- learned Senior Counsel with Shri
Ashwani Johri - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta- Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Ankur Mody with Shri Nitin Agrawal- Advocate for the
respondent no.4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No.23479 of 2021
SATENDRA KUMAR JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narottam Shrama - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta- Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Ankur Mody with Shri Nitin Agrawal- Advocate for the
respondent no.4.
2
Reserved on : 23/07/2025
Delivered on : 06/08/2025
ORDER
1. The petitioner in W.P. No.17066/2021 has filed this petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 26/06/2021 (Annexure-P/1) whereby he was informed that he is not found suitable for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Electrical Engineering) on regular basis and, consequently, his appointment on the post of Assistant Professor is discontinued w.e.f. 01/07/2021. The petitioner has also prayed for direction to respondent no.3 & 4 to re-instate him in service with all consequential benefits.
2. Likewise, the petitioner in W.P. No.23479/2021 has filed the writ petition challenging the order, dated 08.09.2021, (Annexure P/1) whereby he has been informed that he is not found suitable for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (AI&DS) and also on the post of Assistant Professor (CSE) and consequently his earlier appointment is also discontinued with effect from 10.09.2021. TheIs petitioner has also prayed for direction to respondent no.3 & 4 to re-instate him in service with all consequential benefits.
3. These two petitions, since involves similar question of law and the facts are also similar, are being decided by this common order. For purposes of convenience, the facts are taken from W.P. No.17066 of 2021.
4. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that respondent no.4, Samrat Ashok Technical Institute (Engineering College) Vidisha, (hereinafter referred to as "College") is an Institute which is run and managed by a Society registered under the Society Registration Act. The petitioner alleges that college receives 100% grant-in-aid from State Government while College alleges that it is receiving only 25% grant-in-aid 3 in the form of Block Grant which is less than 25% of the total salary expenditure of the Institute. The College is affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya (RGPV) (hereinafter referred to as "University").
5. It is gathered from the records that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Lecturer on contract basis by the College vide order, dated 28/02/2006, (Annexure- P/2) for a period of 85 days. As per the terms of contract, he was entitled to get consolidated monthly salary of Rs.8000/- and further that the appointment was co-terminus with the period of contract. This contract period was extended from time to time, sometimes for 85 days and at times for 31 days. Lastly, it was extended for a period from 21/08/2008 to 10/02/2009 vide order dated 20/08/2008 and the monthly salary was increased to Rs.12,000/-.
6. The respondent college thereafter, passed an order on 22/09/2008 (Annexure-P/3), whereby the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer (General Category) in Electrical Engineering Department of the college in the regular pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500/-. His salary was fixed on basic of pay scale i.e. Rs.8000/- per month plus other admissible allowances. Regular increments were released in his favour from time to time. Thereafter, in the year 2010, a committee consisting of five members appointed the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor till further orders in the regular Pay Band of Rs.15600-13100 + 6000 GP. From the document filed as Annexure P/5, it is gathered that the petitioner was given appointment as Assistant Professor w.e.f. 22/09/2008 from which date he was earlier appointed as Lecturer. The petitioner continued to get regular increments up to year 2021.
7. The College issued an advertisement on 16/02/2021 inviting applications for appointment on regular posts of Professor/Associate 4 Professor/Assistant Professor as per AICTE norms in the Engineering & Technology Disciplines of the College. Six posts of Assistant Professor were advertised for Electrical & Engineering Department out of which two posts were available for UR candidates. The petitioner also submitted his candidature for appointment as Assistant Professor (Electrical Engineering) (Annexure R-1). The Staff Selection Committee conducted selection process wherein the petitioner was also called for interview on 09/06/2021 vide call letter dated 02/06/2021 (Annexure P/7). Thereafter, since the petitioner was not found suitable, he was discontinued even from his earlier appointment vide impugned order dated 26/06/2021 (Annexure- P/1).
8. Challenging the impugned action of respondent College, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was given regular appointment vide order dated 22/09/2008 (Annexure P/2) on the post of Lecturer while he was granted appointment as Assistant Professor in the year 2010 by the committee of five members vide Annexure P/5. It is his submission that since the petitioner was already working as a regular incumbent, conducting fresh selection process by the College is bad in law. He also submitted that since the college was in dominating position, under compulsion, the petitioner was required to submit fresh application for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor pursuant to the advertisement, dated 16/02/2021.
9. The learned senior counsel further referred to the documents filed as Annexure- P/13 and submitted that respondent College itself furnished information to AICTE wherein the petitioner has been shown as regular Assistant Professor in the Institute. He also referred to the document filed as Annexure P/14 wherein similar information was given by the College to the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), Ministry of Education, Government of India. Likewise, he referred to the document filed as 5 Annexure P/15 wherein in 2009, the College has submitted information to the University wherein the petitioner was shown as regular staff of the College. He thus, submitted that action of college in treating the petitioner as temporary employee is ex-facie illegal and, therefore, the impugned order, dated 26/06/2025, (Annexure- P/1) is liable to be quashed and the petitioner deserves to be re-instated in service.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/College strongly supported the action of the College. He raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition inter-alia on the ground that the College is a private institution and Government do not have any control over the functioning of the College. Therefore, the writ petition seeking enforcement of private employment is not maintainable. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Trigun Chand Thakur Vs. State of Bihar &Ors. reported in (2019)7 SCC 513 and also in the case of Army Welfare Education Society, New delhi Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma & ors. reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1683.
11. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed various material facts. It is his submission that right from the beginning, the petitioner's employment was temporary and on contract basis and was extended from time to time in the similar capacity. He further submitted that the petitioner never faced recruitment process conducted by a Selection Committee for making regular appointment on the sanctioned posts and right from the inception he was inducted on contract. The learned counsel for the College also submitted that the petitioner was well aware about the nature of his appointment and, therefore, he willingly applied for regular appointment pursuant to advertisement, dated 16/02/2021. Since the petitioner was not 6 found suitable for regular appointment by the Staff Selection Committee and available posts were filled up by suitable candidates, the petitioner was required to be discontinued.
12. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner do not have any right to claim appointment after the regular incumbents have joined on the sanctioned posts particularly when he has not challenged their appointments. In support of this submission, he relied on Apex Court judgment in the case of PrabodhVerma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1984)4 SCC 251. He also submitted that the petitioner having willingly participated in the selection process, cannot be allowed to challenge the same when he remained unsuccessful. In support of this submission, he relied upon Apex Court judgment in the case of Ranjan Kumar & others Vs. State of Bihar & others reported in (2014)16 SCC
187.
13. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
14. The objection raised by respondent's counsel with regard to maintainability of writ petition needs to be considered first. It is not in dispute that the College is receiving grant from the Government, may be block grant as submitted by College. It is affiliated to University and is also been governed by AICTE norms by virtue of provisions of "All India Council for Technical Education Pay Scales, Service Conditions & Qualifications for the Teachers & other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Degree) Regulations, 2010".
15. The aforesaid issue is no more res integra inasmuch as this Court has already considered the issue and has held the writ petition maintainable against the respondent College itself in the case of Sandeep Jain vs. State of M.P. & ors. (W.P. No.13260/2020). This Court held in para 37 as under:-
"Accordingly, it is held that since, the respondent no. 4 7 is governed by Statute 30 framed by the State Govt. under Section 38(1) read with Section 37 of Rajiv Gandhi Proudogiki Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1998, and the respondent no.4 is also getting grant-in-aid, as well as the service conditions of the teaching staff is regulated and safeguarded as per the provisions of College Code, thus, the respondent no.4 is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, is amenable to writ jurisdiction."
16. Since, the issue is already considered and decided by this Court, the preliminary objection raised by respondents is here rejected and the writ petition is held to be maintainable
17. On merits, it is not in dispute between the parties that the provisions of Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya (College Code Statute), 2007, commonly known as College Code, are applicable to the college. Regulation 20(1) of College Code provides as under:-
"20(1) No appointment to any teaching post in the college, including the post of the Principal but excluding part-time appointments, temporary appointments which are not to continue for more than six months and appointments to posts which are to be filled by promotion, shall be made except.
(a) after duly and widely advertising the post together with the minimum qualifications as prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education, therefore and the emoluments of the post and allowing the reasonable time within which the applicants may in response to the advertisements, submit their applications;
(b) on the recommendation of the Selection committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 17 below for the "Non-grantee colleges" and the Rules framed under Madhya Pradesh Ashasakiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon tatha Karmachariyon ke vetano ka sandaya) Adhiniyam 1978 for "Grantee Colleges".
18. Thus, no appointment to any teaching post in the College can be made except after duly and widely advertising the post together with 8 minimum qualification prescribed by AICTE. Further, such appointments can be made only on the recommendation of selection committee constituted as per M.P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon tatha Karmachariyon keVetano ka Sandaya), Adhiniyam, 1978, in relation to grantee Colleges.
The term 'grantee college' is defined under Regulation 2(f) to mean a College receiving maintenance grant from State Government. Admittedly, as per its own submission, the college is getting block grant from State Government. Further, from reading Regulation 20(1), it is gathered that the College can make part-time and temporary appointments which are not to continue for more than six months.
19. Keeping in view the provisions of Regulation 20 of College Code, if the nature of petitioner's initial appointment is examined, it is found to be purely temporary as he was appointed on 22.08.2006 for a period of 85 days and the same was made to continue till he was appointed as Lecturer in regular pay scale vide order, dated 22.09.2008, (Annexure P/3).
20. The petitioner claims to have been permanently appointed vide order, dated 22.09.2008. However, from document filed as Annexure P/3, it does not appear that the appointment of petitioner as Lecturer was made as per Regulation 20 of College Code by a properly constituted selection committee. Therefore, the petitioner would not acquire status of a regular teacher in the College. Similar, is the situation when the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in the year 2010. Again, this appointment was not shown to have been made after advertisement and by selection committee as per AICTE norms. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that he acquired status of a permanent teacher in the College is not acceptable inasmuch as his appointment either as Lecturer or Assistant Professor was not in consonance with Regulation 20 of College Code.
21. The aforesaid view of this court also finds support from the fact that 9 the petitioner himself applied for regular appointment pursuant to advertisement, dated 16.02.2021. The conduct of petitioner shows that he was aware about the nature of his appointment being temporary. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to justify the petitioner's conduct by stating that under compulsion, the petitioner was made to submit application for fresh appointment. However, this submission is not acceptable inasmuch as the petitioner is a literate person and is expected to know about his legal rights. Moreso, he did not raise any objection in this regard and participated in the process of selection and got aggrieved only when he was not selected. Therefore, he cannot be allowed to say that he submitted application under compulsion.
22. Needless to say, any appointment given contrary to statutory provisions cannot have sanction of law even though the employee may have continued for a long period of time. The nature of appointment would remain the same and would not change with lapse of time. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit on account of his initial contractual appointment and subsequent conferral of appointment on the post of Lecturer and/or Assistant Professor. Since, the appointments were not made in accordance with Regulation 20 of College Code, the same cannot be held to be legal and no right would accrue in favour of petitioners.
23. The learned counsel for respondent is right in submitting that after having participated in selection process, the petitioner cannot be allowed to question the process. The Apex Court has dealt with similar issue in the case of Ranjan Kumar (supra) wherein the Court has held in para 14 & 15 as under:-
"14. The next submission which has been presented before us is that when the respondents had appeared in the interview knowing fully well the process, they could not have resiled later on or taken a somersault saying that the 10 procedure as adopted by the department was vitiated. In this connection, it is apt to refer to the principle stated in Om PrakashShukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [Om PrakashShukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644]. In the said case a three- Judge Bench, taking note of the fact that the petitioner in the writ petition had appeared for the examination without protest and filed the petition only after he realised that he would not succeed in the examination, held that the writ petitioner should not have been granted any relief by the High Court.
15. In this context, we may quote a passage from MadanLalv.State of J&K [MadanLal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712 : (1995) 29 ATC 603] with profit: (SCC p. 493, para 9).
"9. ... It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644] it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner."
24. The objection raised by respondent's counsel for not impleading necessary party is also worth consideration. Admittedly, after the selection process, the persons, named in para 7 of reply of College, have been appointed on the posts. The petitioner has neither impleaded them as party nor have their appointments been challenged in this petition. Therefore, the petition suffers from the defect of non-joinder of necessary party. In this regard, the Apex Court has held in para 50 of Praboth Verma (supra) as under:-
11"50.To summarize our conclusions:
(1) A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually, and, if the petitioners refuse to so join them, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition for non-joinder of necessary parties. (2) The Allahabad High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and dispose of Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 9174 of 1978 --Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [1979 All LJ 178] -- without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made respondents to that writ petition or at least some of them being made respondents thereto in a representative capacity as the number of the reserve pool teachers was too large and, had the petitioners refused to do so, to dismiss that writ petition for non-joinder of necessary parties.
xxx xxx xxx (20) In view of the fact that the vacancies to which these reserve pool teachers would have been appointed have already been filled and in all likelihood those so appointed have been confirmed in their posts, to appoint these reserve pool teachers with effect from any retrospective date would be to throw out the present incumbents from their jobs for no fault of theirs. It will, therefore, be in consonance with justice and equity and fair to all parties concerned if the remaining reserve pool teachers are appointed in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Ordinance 22 of 1978 to substantive vacancies occurring in the posts of teachers in recognized institutions which are to be filled by direct recruitment as and when each such vacancy occurs."
25. The learned senior counsel for petitioner next challenged the action of College on the ground that a teacher can be terminated only on the ground and with the approval of Executive Council, as enumerated in Regulation 33 of College Code. However, this objection is unacceptable inasmuch as the provisions of Regulation 33 would apply only to a teacher 12 appointed as per Regulation 20 and would not apply to a temporary or part time teacher. This court has already held that the petitioner was not a teacher appointed as per Regulation 20 of College Code and, therefore, protection under Regulation 33 is not available to him.
26. In view of the discussion made above, this Court finds that the petitioners are not entitled to any indulgence in these writ petitions. The petitions are therefore, found to be without any substance and are accordingly dismissed.
27. This Court however, finds it proper to observe the conduct of the College in reflecting the petitioners' name as regular/permanent faculty of the College while furnishing information to AICTE/University/NIRF as is evident from documents filed as Annexure P/13 to P/15. This appears to have been done by the College in order to satisfy the AICTE/University norms necessary to run the college. As per the stand taken by College itself, the information supplied to AICTE/University, showing the petitioners to be regular and permanent faculty of College, was incorrect. This is not appreciated and the AICTE/University authorities are expected to keep watch over such activities of the Colleges.
28. In view of discussion made above, the writ petitions are dismissed. However, the registry of this Court shall forward the copy of this order to AICTE/University for their information.
(ASHISH SHROTI) JUDGE rahul Digitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH RAHUL SINGH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf 82ab676d0cde4dee473fe77953f5, PARIHAR postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=0275C4F803F94C47998BE5C534E21B DED910FD4AB9D159B55575E814D05B2EED, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2025.08.12 10:09:29 -07'00'