Dr Trilok Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging order dated 06.01.2026 & 14.07.2025 filed as Annexure-P/1 & P/2 and prayer is also made for issuing of writ of mandamus to respondent no.3 for issuing appointment order of petitioner for post of Assistant Professor (Dentistry) in the light of Rule 7(3) of Madhya Pradesh Autonomous Medical College Medical Service Model Rules, 2018.

Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner is Bachelor in Dental Surgery and has completed his Master's from LNCT Rishiraj Dental College, Bhopal District-Bhopal in the year 2015. LNCT Rishiraj Dental College is recognized Dental College by Dental Council of India. Madhya Pradesh Autonomous Medical College Medical Services Model Rules, 2018 were enacted and respondent no.3 and 11 other medical colleges were established as Autonomous Medical College. Rules lay down the procedure for appointment and promotion. An advertisement was issued by respondent no.3-College i.e. the Institute of Medical Sciences Chhidwara on 06.01.2025. Petitioner applied for the same. Objection was raised regarding working period of petitioner in different institutions due to dates mentioned therein. Petitioner gave his explanation and thereafter, petitioner was permitted to participate in recruitment process. Petitioner was called for interview on 12.04.2025. Petitioner's name found place in serial no.1 in wait list in selection process and one Dr. Amit Kumar Sahu was declared as successful candidate in 'unreserved category'. Amit Kumar Sahu did not join the post. Petitioner was not issued appointment letter. Candidature of petitioner was cancelled on 11.07.2025 by Dean, Institute of Medical Sciences Chhindwara. Reason for cancellation of candidature of petitioner was violation of Condition No.12.6. Petitioner preferred writ petition-W.P.No.28110/2025 against impugned order and respondents were stopped from proceeding for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (Dentistry) vide order dated 01.08.2025. Complaint was made that bond certificate was not attached after completing post graduation and experience of Senior Resident from LNCT is over lapping experience of Assistant from Rishiraj Dental College was not attached. It is submitted that Teachers Eligibility Qualification Regulation 2022 (TEQ Regulation, 2022) is applicable for recruitment. As per said guidelines, minimum qualification which is required is one year as Senior Resident. It is submitted that as per TEQ Regulation 2022 for post of Associate Professor and Professor, research articles are required to be submitted, which is not so in case of Assistant Professor. Petitioner has filed writ petition bearing No.28110/2025, in which, direction was given to Dean to pass fresh orders after providing copy of complaint and opportunity of hearing to petitioner. It is submitted that committee to enquire into complaint could not have been formulated. Committee went beyond the complaint and examined other documents of petitioner. It is submitted that scrutiny of application form of petitioner was done and petitioner was found fit, therefore, second complaint may not have been entertained. It is submitted that petitioner did not give any wrong information but due to inadvertent error, it was mentioned that petitioner was working as Assistant Professor in Dental Department Chhindwara. Error has been committed by clerk or counsel and not by petitioner himself. It is submitted that intentions of respondents are malafide and on one pretext or the other, they want to disqualify the petitioner. In view of same, Court may interfere into the matter and set-aside impugned orders and further direct respondents to issue appointment letter to petitioner.

Counsel appearing for respondent no.5-Barkatullah University submitted that following discrepancies are found in the mark-sheet of petitioner :-

It is submitted that due to said reason, candidature of petitioner was rejected. During course of arguments, counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has not filed copy of mark-sheet and same may have been filed by some other person to get his candidature cancelled.

Heard learned counsel for parties.

Aforesaid argument made by counsel for petitioner that some other person has filed the marksheet cannot be believed. Petitioner himself has deposited his application form in the University for recruitment. Petitioner is only making a lame excuse that a forged document is filed malafidely by some other person and not filed by him. Action has been taken on basis of mark-sheet of petitioner and not on basis of other grounds, which are raised in this writ petition. Since, mark-sheet of first year of petitioner is found not to have been issued by Barkatullah University, therefore, no error has been committed by respondents in rejecting the candidature of petitioner for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (Dentistry). Ground raised by counsel appearing for petitioner that committee could not have been appointed and committee has exceeded the agenda also does not have any force. Committee has examined the application form and documents of petitioner. If while examining the complaint, any other document comes in light of examining body to be forged, then examining body cannot ignore the same and they have rightly taken the action. No clarification needs to be asked from petitioner because scrutiny of application form and certificates is at recruitment level. Petitioner has not been appointed yet and no right has been created in his favour.

In view of same, no interference is called for in writ petition. Writ petition filed by petitioner is dismissed.