University Professors Are Employees, Not Public Officers: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Petition

While dismissing a petition seeking a writ of quo warranto against an Associate Professor, the Bench clarified that under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, teachers are categorized as employees rather than "Officers" or "Authorities."

The Court held that since the post lacks the necessary "public trappings" and involves a strictly employer-employee relationship with the University, the fundamental requirement for issuing a writ of quo warranto—the existence of a public office—was not satisfied.

The Bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed, “An Associate Professor or Professor has no sovereign or public function to discharge. They do not interact publicly in their duties, nor do they discharge duties in the public domain affecting the legal rights of the citizenry at large. Professors, readers, or teachers cannot be grouped to treat them in the category of holders of a public office…By no stretch of imagination, given the very nature of their post and the work and duties attached, can teaching faculty become 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. In this view, as no relief can be granted on this preliminary score alone, the need does not arise to go into any other aspect of merit regarding the petitioner's specific claims of educational or domicile disqualification.”

Advocate L. C. Patne appeared for the Petitioner, GA Kushagra Singh appeared for the Respondents.

The Petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Quo Warranto. He challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 6 as a Lecturer in Computer Science. The Petitioner assailed the appointment order issued by the University, as Respondent No. 6 secured a post reserved for the OBC category.

Facts of the Case

The University issued an advertisement for various teaching posts. These vacancies included a position for Lecturer in Computer Science, which was reserved for the OBC (non-creamy layer) category of Madhya Pradesh.

The advertisement stipulated that candidates required a Master’s degree with at least 55% marks. It further mandated passing the NET/SLET exam, unless the candidate attained an M.Phil. or Ph.D. before the specified cutoff. Respondent No. 6 applied for the post and subsequently received an appointment order from the University.

Following complaints, the University directed Respondent No. 6 to clear the eligibility exam within two years. Later, enquiry committees investigated the matter and found that the appointment violated both educational qualifications and reservation rules.

The Executive Council of the University held an emergency meeting to review the case. The Council concluded that the appointment was prima facie illegal and resolved to refer the matter to the Chancellor for final orders.

Submissions of the Petitioner

The Petitioner contended that Respondent No. 6 was ineligible to hold the public post of Lecturer. He submitted that on the cutoff date for applications, Respondent No. 6 held only a B.Tech degree and was still pursuing his Post Graduation. Thus, he lacked the required Master’s degree with 55% marks. The Petitioner further argued that Respondent No. 6 did not possess a NET/SLET certificate, nor a Ph.D. or M.Phil. degree. He asserted that even after the University granted an extension, Respondent No. 6 failed to obtain the necessary qualifications.

Additionally, the Petitioner claimed that Respondent No. 6 was a domicile of Uttar Pradesh and submitted a caste certificate that failed to mention non-creamy layer status. He contended that securing an appointment against a reserved post while being ineligible amounted to a fraud upon the Constitution.

Submissions of the Respondents

The University (Respondents No. 3, 4, and 5) contended that the petition suffered from excessive delay. The University denied any collusion and stated that it conducted enquiries, issued notices, and forwarded the matter to the Chancellor for a final decision. Respondent No. 6 opposed the petition regarding its maintainability. He argued that a University teacher was merely an "employee" and not an "Officer" or "Authority" under the relevant Act. Therefore, he claimed the post did not involve sovereign functions and was not a "Public Office."

Respondent No. 6 further pleaded that the matter was barred by the principle of res sub-judice. He pointed out that he had already challenged the University’s resolution in a separate, pending writ petition.

Observations of the Court

The Court considered the primary issue of whether a writ of quo warranto was maintainable. The Petitioner sought to remove Respondent No. 6 from his teaching post on grounds of insufficient qualifications and an invalid caste certificate. Conversely, the Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the post did not constitute a "public office."

It observed, “This court is of view that three ingredients are necessary to be satisfied before a writ of quo warranto could be claimed. i. The post or office held by the person against whom the writ is sought for, is of the nature of public office. ii. The appointment of the post must be found to contrary to statutory provisions defining the eligibility of the post. iii. The order is an usurper without legal authority and is unqualified to man the post, which is a public office.”

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court noted that a "public office" was one created by the Constitution or a statute. A quo warranto proceeding required the holder of an independent substantive public office to show the authority under which they held that position.

The Court reiterated that its jurisdiction was limited. It could only issue the writ if the appointment was contrary to statutory rules. It emphasized that Courts could not judge the Government’s choice of a candidate as long as that person possessed the prescribed qualifications.

The Court further reasoned that the concept of "public office" involved duties of a public nature that affected the rights of the general public. In this case, Respondent No. 6 served as a member of the academic faculty.

The Court found that under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, teachers were not defined as "Officers" or "Authorities." Instead, they shared a strictly employer-employee relationship with the University. Unlike the Chancellor or Registrar, a Professor had no sovereign or public functions to discharge.

“An Associate Professor or Professor, as Respondent No. 6 is, may be a part of the academic faculty, but for all functional and legal purposes, he is merely an employee of the University. As noted in the pleadings relying upon the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, teachers are not defined 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 said.

Consequently, the Court determined that the teaching faculty did not hold a public office. Since the post did not meet this fundamental requirement, the petition for quo warranto failed.

Because the petition was not maintainable at the threshold, the Court declined to examine the merits of the Petitioner’s claims regarding educational qualifications or domicile. The Court dismissed the writ petition and disposed of all pending applications.

Cause Title: Dr. Kshamasheel Mishra v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others [Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:8319]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate L. C. Patne.

Respondents: Deputy Government Advocate Kushagra Singh, Advocate Harshvardhan Sharma, Ramji Yadav (Respondent No. 6).

Click here to read/download the Order