The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday ruled that a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of a professor or an associate professor is not maintainable [Dr Kshamasheel Mishra v The State of Madhya Pradesh]
Justice Jai Kumar Pillai gave the ruling while rejecting a plea challenging the 1996 appointment of Dr. Ramji Yadav as the Lecturer in Computer Science and Applications department of Vikram University.
Yadav is currently is an Associate Professor. His appointment was challenged in 2024 on grounds of inadequate educational qualifications and an invalid Other Backward Class (OBC) caste certificate.
The Court opined that given the nature of their post and the work and duties attached, teaching faculty can, by no stretch of imagination, be held to be holders of a public office.
"For all the above considerations, the post of Associate Professor held by Respondent No. 6 is not a public office. The sine qua non for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto is thus not satisfied in the present case," it ruled.
The Court also said that an Associate Professor or Professor may be a part of the academic faculty, but for all functional and legal purposes, he is merely an employee of the University.
It further noted that Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam of 1973 does not define teachers as 'officers' or 'authorities' under Sections 11 and 19 of the Act.
"The lecturers or associate professors bear a jural relationship with the University, and that relationship is strictly one of employee and employer," it added.
Thus, the Court declined to look into merits of the case and rejected the plea.
The university earlier submitted that it has already conducted a thorough enquiry into Dr. Yadav's appointment, issued show-cause notices and forwarded the matter to the Chancellor, before whom the matter is pending for a final decision.
As per the plea filed in the Court in 2024, the University Executive Council in 2012 had given a prima facie opinion that Yadav was illegally appointed in violation of educational requirements and reservation rules.
However, the Court said that no relief can be granted as the petition was not maintainable.
"The present writ petition fails on the very threshold of maintainability, as the post under challenge does not constitute a public office," it said.
Advocate LC Patne represented the petitioner.
Advocate Harshvardhan Sharma represented the University.
Deputy Government Advocate Kushagra Singh appeared for the State.
Dr. Yadav appeared in person.
[Read Judgment]