AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal
This writ appeal challenges the judgment dated 16.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2861/2026, whereby the petition filed by the appellant Smt. Nisha Pandey, Senior Lecturer (Civil Engineering), Government Polytechnic College, Rewa was dismissed, leaving undisturbed the order dated 19.01.2026 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Skill Development and Employment, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, by which the administrative charge of in-charge Principal of the said college was transferred from the appellant to Dr. Rishikesh Tripathi (Respondent No. 4), a Lecturer in Mathematics.
The relevant background facts, as emerging from the record, may be noticed briefly. The appellant was appointed as Lecturer (Civil Engineering) on 09.07.2009. She was deputed to Government Polytechnic College, Rewa on 28.05.2011 and was absorbed therein on 27.04.2018. Respondent No. 4, Dr. Rishikesh Tripathi, was appointed as Lecturer (Mathematics) on 07.09.2009 and was absorbed at Rewa only on 01.01.2025 nearly seven years after the appellant's absorption. By order dated 06.07.2023 issued by the Directorate of Technical Education, the administrative charge of in-charge Principal was handed over to the appellant as the senior-most teacher, upon the previous in-charge being transferred.
A precise chronological reading of the events on record is essential to appreciating the challenge made in this appeal. The sequence is as follows: On 25.06.2025, the appellant, in the discharge of her duties as in-charge Principal, took disciplinary action against M/s MP Security and Allied Services (Shri Santosh Pandey, proprietor) an outsourced cleaning agency for financial irregularities and misconduct, and cancelled its contract. On 30.07.2025, a complaint letter was received by the Directorate of Technical Education from the Assistant Inspector General, Economic Offences Wing (EOW) Headquarters, Bhopal, bearing Complaint Inward No. 01887/2025(1); it is pertinent that this complaint surfaced after, and not before, the cancellation of the contractor's contract. On 06.08.2025, the Joint Commissioner directed the Collector, Rewa to examine a complaint filed by Shri Santosh Pandey the very same private contractor whose contract had been cancelled by the appellant. On 25.08.2025, the Directorate of Technical Education, by letter No. S-10/B/E.F. No. 734232/2025/403, appointed Dr. A.K. Dohare, Professor (Electronics Engg.), Rewa Engineering College, and Prof. G.R. Kumre, Professor (Electronics Engg.), Rewa Engineering College, as Inquiry Officers to investigate the EOW complaint an order approved by the Additional Director, Directorate of Technical Education (M.P.), acting under the authority of the Commissioner, being a departmentally competent authority. On 15.10.2025, the Additional Collector, Rewa constituted a three-member committee comprising the SDM (Huzur), the Tehsildar (Huzur), and an Assistant Accounts Officer to enquire into a complaint filed by Respondent No. 4; the legal competence of the Collector to constitute such a committee is a matter of serious challenge, addressed hereinafter. On 29.11.2025, the said three-member committee submitted its report; the competence of this committee and the legal validity of its report are equally disputed and fall for examination below. On 19.01.2026, the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Technical Education, transferring the charge of in-charge Principal from the appellant to Respondent No. 4 without any show cause notice being issued to the appellant by the Technical Education Department and without any departmental proceedings being initiated against her. On 21.01.2026, the appellant filed W.P. No. 2861/2026, whereupon two caveats were filed on the very same day one by Respondent No. 4 and one by Shri Santosh Pandey, the private contractor in near-identical terms, pointing to a common design. On 16.03.2026, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. On 23.03.2026, Respondent No. 4 filed an RTI application in response to which the enquiry report dated 29.11.2025 was made available that is, after the impugned order and after the dismissal of the writ petition, confirming that this report was not before the writ Court and could not have been the basis for the impugned order. On 27.04.2026, the Collector, Rewa forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Technical Education Department a letter recommending initiation of disciplinary action against the appellant under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 the very fact of such a recommendation, addressed to the Technical Education Department, being itself an acknowledgment that the disciplinary authority over the appellant vests in the Technical Education Department and not in the Collector.
Upon the appellant filing W.P. No. 2861/2026 on 21.01.2026, two caveats were filed on the very same day one by Respondent No. 4 and one by Shri Santosh Pandey, the private contractor. A comparative reading of the two caveats reveals that they are almost verbatim and appear to have been drafted by the same person. The fact that Shri Santosh Pandey a private contractor had knowledge of the impugned order and the filing of the writ petition on the very day of institution, and filed a caveat in near-identical terms as Respondent No. 4, is a circumstance of considerable significance pointing to a common design.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition primarily on three grounds: first, that the allegation of malafide involved disputed questions of fact which could not be examined; second, that there existed an enquiry report against the appellant and there was no document to show that she had been exonerated; and third, that Respondent No. 4 was qualified to hold the post of Principal and no adverse civil consequence would flow from the transfer of in-charge charge. It is against these findings that the present appeal is preferred.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
The learned Single Judge declined to examine the question of malafide on the ground that it may involve disputed questions of fact. We are unable to sustain this reasoning. The allegation of malafide, as pressed by the appellant, rests not on disputed or contentious facts but on undisputed documentary facts appearing on the face of the record:
The appellant cancelled the contract of Shri Santosh Pandey (M/s MP Security and Allied Services) on 25.06.2025. This is undisputed.
Thereafter, and not before, the two complaints against the appellant were filed one by the very contractor whose contract was cancelled, and another by Respondent No. 4.
Both caveators Respondent No. 4 and Shri Santosh Pandey are direct beneficiaries of the appellant being removed from the post of in-charge Principal. Respondent No. 4 gains the post; and the contractor appears to have had his interests served by the new in-charge, as the fresh tender process was cancelled upon Respondent No. 4 taking charge.
The two caveats are near-identical in language a circumstance inconsistent with their independent genesis, pointing unmistakably to concerted action.
None of these are disputed facts. They emerge from documents on the record itself. Where malafide is apparent from undisputed documentary facts particularly where the complainants are themselves the beneficiaries of the action complained of the Court cannot shut its eyes to such a chain of circumstances by simply labelling the matter as involving disputed facts. The learned Single Judge's refusal to examine the malafide was, therefore, an error of approach.
The learned Single Judge recorded a finding that there exists an enquiry report against the appellant and that no document had been placed on record showing her exoneration. With respect, this finding is not borne out by the record before the writ Court. A scrutiny of the replies filed by the State and Respondent No. 4 reveals that what was placed on record were only:
A letter dated 06.08.2025 from the Joint Commissioner to the Collector requesting examination of the complaint of Shri Santosh Pandey.
A letter dated 15.10.2025 from the Additional Collector constituting a three-member committee to enquire into the complaint of Respondent No. 4.
No enquiry report was placed on record along with the replies before the writ Court. Critically, it is undisputed that the Technical Education Department which is the parent department of the appellant had not issued any show cause notice, nor initiated any departmental proceedings against the appellant, prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 19.01.2026. It is further noted that the 'enquiry report' dated 29.11.2025 (prepared by the three-member committee consisting of the SDM Huzur, Tehsildar Huzur, and an Assistant Accounts Officer) was received by the Collector and later made available only through an RTI response obtained by Respondent No. 4 vide an RTI application dated 23.03.2026 which is after the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 and after the dismissal of the writ petition on 16.03.2026. This report, therefore, could not have been the basis for the impugned order and was evidently not placed before the writ Court as part of the State's reply. The finding of the learned Single Judge that there is an enquiry report against the appellant and that she has not been exonerated is, therefore, contrary to the record and cannot be sustained.
Even if the enquiry report dated 29.11.2025 were considered (which, as held above, it cannot be, having been produced only after the impugned order and after the dismissal of the writ petition), a fundamental legal infirmity strikes at its very foundation: the committee was constituted by the Additional Collector, Rewa, which authority had no power to constitute any inquiry committee in relation to the service conditions of the appellant or to investigate complaints against her as a teacher/Principal of a Government Polytechnic College. This Court records its reasons for this conclusion as follows:
No statutory provision, no circular, no notification and no delegation order has been brought on record by the respondents to establish that the Collector exercises disciplinary control, supervisory jurisdiction, or transfer/posting authority over the teaching staff or Principal of Government Polytechnic Colleges under the Department of Technical Education, Madhya Pradesh.
The impugned transfer/charge arrangement has admittedly been made by the Department of Technical Education through the Deputy Secretary which itself indicates that the competent administrative authority vests in the Technical Education Department and not in the Collector or the Revenue hierarchy.
Under the scheme of the M.P. Technical Education Polytechnic College (Teaching Cadre) Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, read with the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, disciplinary proceedings in respect of a teacher of a Government Polytechnic College are required to be undertaken by the competent departmental authority under the Technical Education Department. The Collector is not the controlling authority, the appointing authority, or the disciplinary authority in respect of such service matters.
No statutory provision under the Janbhagidari Samiti framework relied upon, impliedly, as the basis for constituting the committee empowers the Collector to constitute an inquiry committee into the service conditions or official conduct of teachers of Government Polytechnic Colleges. The Janbhagidari Samiti scheme relates to community participation in school/college management on administrative and infrastructural matters; it does not vest the Collector with powers of a disciplinary authority in relation to teachers governed by State service rules under the Technical Education Department. The right to inquire into service-related matters of such teachers vests exclusively with the Commissioner of Technical Education/the Technical Education Department.
The Collector, by constituting an inquiry committee through the Additional Collector's letter dated 15.10.2025, effectively bypassed the order of the Deputy Secretary of Technical Education and arrogated to itself an inquiry jurisdiction which it does not possess under any statutory provision. A committee constituted without jurisdiction and without lawful authority cannot generate a report that has any legal validity or evidentiary worth in service law matters.
The contrast with the inquiry ordered by the Technical Education Department itself (letter dated 25.08.2025 appointing Inquiry Officers from Rewa Engineering College under the authority of the Commissioner, Directorate of Technical Education) is instructive. That inquiry was initiated by the competent departmental authority. No finding of that departmentally-appointed inquiry has been placed on record. What was instead relied upon and what the learned Single Judge apparently considered was the report of the committee constituted by the Collector, which is an authority without jurisdiction over such service matters.
It is further noted that the Collector's letter dated 27.04.2026 which came after the impugned order and after the dismissal of the writ petition recommends initiation of disciplinary action under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, addressed to the Principal Secretary, Technical Education Department. This very fact that the Collector could only 'recommend' disciplinary action to the Technical Education Department is itself an acknowledgment that the disciplinary power in respect of the appellant vests in the Technical Education Department alone, and not in the Collector. If the Collector had disciplinary jurisdiction, it would have initiated proceedings; instead, it forwarded a recommendation. This conduct is entirely consistent with the legal position that the Collector is not the competent authority.
The impugned order dated 19.01.2026 was thus passed by the Deputy Secretary, Technical Education Department, evidently in reliance upon a complaint and inquiry process conducted by an authority the Revenue Collector which had no jurisdiction to investigate service-related conduct of a Government Polytechnic College teacher. The impugned order recites no independent application of mind by the Technical Education Department, no show cause notice, and no departmental inquiry under the applicable service rules. It is passed without hearing the appellant and without following the principles of natural justice. Such an order, passed in the shadow of a jurisdictionally incompetent inquiry, vitiated by malafide, and in breach of the rules of seniority and natural justice, cannot be sustained.
The learned Single Judge held that Respondent No. 4 is qualified to hold the post of Principal of a Government Polytechnic College, without analysing the material placed on record by the appellant in this regard. The position in law and on record is as follows:
As per Entry 67 of the Schedule to the MP Technical Education Polytechnic College (Teaching Cadre) Service Recruitment Rules, 2004, the qualification for the post of Principal (Technical) requires: (i) qualification as for the post of Head of Department along with a Ph.D. in Engineering/Technology; and (ii) minimum of ten years' relevant teaching/research/industry experience, out of which at least three years must be at the level of Head of Department or equivalent.
Respondent No. 4 is a Lecturer in Mathematics a non-technical/science subject. The AICTE Notification dated 04.01.2016 (point 56) expressly clarifies that faculty from Humanities and Science subjects are not eligible to be appointed as Principal. There is admittedly no sanctioned post of Head of Department (Mathematics) in Government Polytechnic College, Rewa, and accordingly Respondent No. 4 has neither held nor could have held the post of HOD a mandatory experience requirement.
Respondent No. 4 has placed reliance upon Rule 4.7 of the All India Council for Technical Education Regulations on Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Technical Education (Diploma) Regulation, 2019, notified on 01.03.2019. The said provision, being relevant, is reproduced hereinbelow:
"4.7Qualifications for Principal (Level — 13A1, Entry Pay Rs.1,31,400/- with the special allowance of Rs.4,500/- per month)
(a)Direct Recruitment: minimum Ph.D. and First Class at either Bachelor's or Master's level in the relevant discipline with post-Ph.D. years of experience in Teaching/Research/Industry, out of which at least 3 years shall be post-Ph.D. experience and 5 years of experience not below the level of HoD. OR First Class at Bachelor's or Master's level in the relevant discipline and minimum of 20 years of experience in Teaching/Research/Industry, out of which 5 years of experience not below the level of HoD.
(b)For promotion of the Incumbent: Ph.D. and First Class at Bachelor's or Master's level in the relevant discipline with minimum of 16 years of experience in Teaching/Research/Industry, out of which 5 years shall be at the level of HoD and 3 years shall be post-Ph.D. Experience; An average 360° feedback score of 5 to less than 8 out of 10 for last 5 years. OR First Class at Bachelor's or Master's level in the relevant discipline; minimum of 20 years of experience in Teaching/Research/Industry, out of which 7 years shall be not below the level of HoD; An average 360° feedback score of 8 to 10 out of 10 for last 5 years.
Note: Existing designations and pay scale of incumbent faculty, Head of the Department and Principals shall be protected and may be placed in appropriate cell in the level corresponding to their AGP drawn on 31.12.2015. Lecturer (Selection Grade-II) can be given charge of HoD on rotation basis as per seniority for three years subject to availability of vacant post."
Respondent No. 4 contends that the AICTE Diploma Regulation, 2019 does not require the Principal to hold a technical degree and that his posting is a temporary arrangement in view of certain irregularities allegedly committed by the appellant pending enquiry. This Court is unable to accept either contention. A plain reading of Rule 4.7 under either pathway, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion mandates, without exception, a minimum of 5 years' experience not below the level of Head of Department. In the case of Respondent No. 4, it is an admitted and undisputed position that there exists no sanctioned post of Head of Department (Mathematics) at Government Polytechnic College, Rewa. In the absence of a sanctioned HoD post, Respondent No. 4 has neither held, nor could have held, the position of HoD at any point in his service rendering the mandatory HoD experience requirement under Rule 4.7 wholly unsatisfied. The Note appended to Rule 4.7 further provides that a Lecturer (Selection Grade-II) may be given charge of HoD only on rotation basis as per seniority and subject to availability of a vacant post reinforcing that the HoD experience prerequisite is a substantive, non-waivable condition and not a mere formality. The contention that Rule 4.7 dispenses with the requirement of a technical degree is equally misconceived: the regulation mandates qualification in the "relevant discipline" which, for the post of Principal of a polytechnic college offering predominantly technical programmes, necessarily means a technical discipline, and not Mathematics. The AICTE Notification dated 04.01.2016 (point 56) explicitly so clarifies. Respondent No. 4's reliance on Rule 4.7 is, therefore, of no avail; a careful reading of that very provision exposes, rather than cures, his disqualification.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Public Service Commission v. Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah (SLP (Civil) No. 27710/2025) has held that AICTE Regulations do not override the State Rules. Accordingly, even if Rule 4.7 of the AICTE Diploma Regulation, 2019 were construed in the manner urged by Respondent No. 4, it cannot override Entry 67 of the MP Technical Education Polytechnic College (Teaching Cadre) Service Recruitment Rules, 2004, which remains the governing prescription.
It is also pertinent that a relaxation granted by the State Government permitting lecturers of non-technical subjects to be appointed as Principal has been challenged in W.P. No. 19039/2022, wherein by an interim order dated 16.09.2022 the said dilution was stayed, and rule nisi was issued on 20.07.2023. The said interim order continues to operate.
Clause 2.26 of the AICTE Regulations, 2019 itself provides that where a college runs several programmes under technical education, the Principal should be from the programme having the maximum student strength which is not the Mathematics department.
In the face of this material which was placed before the writ Court by the appellant a bald finding that Respondent No. 4 is qualified to hold the post of Principal, without reference to or analysis of the said material, cannot be sustained. The finding is perverse and deserves to be set aside.
It is an admitted position that the appellant was appointed on 09.07.2009 and absorbed on 27.04.2018, whereas Respondent No. 4 was appointed on 07.09.2009 and absorbed on 01.01.2025. The appellant is indisputably senior to Respondent No. 4 both in terms of first appointment date and absorption. The departmental practice, as reflected in the order dated 06.07.2023 itself, is to assign the in-charge charge of Principal to the senior-most lecturer. No deviation from this practice has been justified by reference to any administrative exigency. On the contrary, the only 'reasons' disclosed two complaints by interested persons do not constitute a valid administrative justification, particularly when no departmental proceedings or show cause notice were issued prior to the impugned order.
This Court notes one further telling circumstance. Respondent No. 4 is the sole lecturer in Mathematics at Government Polytechnic College, Rewa there being only one sanctioned post in that subject. His being posted as in-charge Principal leaves the Mathematics classes unattended, whereas the Civil Engineering department (the appellant's department) has multiple lecturers and the academic work can be managed without disruption. This is a relevant consideration showing that the impugned order is also administratively unsound.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.03.2026 are vitiated on the following counts:
The impugned order was passed without any show cause notice or departmental proceedings against the appellant by her parent department the Technical Education Department.
The committee constituted by the Additional Collector vide letter dated 15.10.2025 was constituted without jurisdiction, as the Collector is not the competent authority over service matters of teaching staff of Government Polytechnic Colleges under the Technical Education Department; the report of such committee has no legal validity in service law.
The report dated 29.11.2025 of the Collector's committee was not placed before the writ Court, it was made available to Respondent No. 4 only through an RTI response dated 23.03.2026 after the impugned order and after the dismissal of the writ petition and could not have been the basis for the impugned order.
The facts pertaining to malafide namely, that the complaints were filed only after the cancellation of the contractor's contract, and that both caveators are direct and identified beneficiaries of the action taken are undisputed documentary facts which the learned Single Judge ought to have examined, rather than declining to do so on the ground of disputed facts.
Respondent No. 4 does not satisfy the qualifications prescribed under the applicable Service Rules and AICTE notifications for the post of Principal of a Government Polytechnic College, and his reliance on Rule 4.7 of the AICTE Diploma Regulation, 2019 is misplaced inasmuch as that provision itself mandates 5 years' HoD experience a condition he cannot satisfy in the absence of any sanctioned HoD post in his subject at this college; the finding of the learned Single Judge to the contrary is perverse and without reference to the material on record.
The appellant is senior to Respondent No. 4 and the established departmental practice is to assign in-charge charge on the basis of seniority; no valid justification for departure from this practice has been placed on record.
The ground that no adverse civil consequences arise from the impugned order is untenable when the order itself is vitiated by malafide, jurisdictional error, and non-application of mind.
In view of the foregoing, this writ appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 16.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2861/2026 is set aside. The impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Skill Development and Employment, Government of Madhya Pradesh, is hereby quashed. The administrative charge of in-charge Principal of Government Polytechnic College, Rewa shall stand restored to the appellant, Smt. Nisha Pandey, with immediate effect. No order as to costs.