Madhya Pradesh High Court
Baboorao Jadhava vs State Of M.P. on 8 August, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16368
1 WP-5319-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 5319 of 2010
BABOORAO JADHAVA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M P S Raghuwanshi - Senior Advocate with Mohammad Amir
Khan - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri M S Jadon - G.A. for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Ankur Mody - Advocate for respondent No.2/Institute.
Reserved on : 18/07/2025
Pronounced on : 08/08/2025
ORDER
The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
preferred against the order dated 15.05.2010 passed by respondent No.2/ The
Director, Madhav Institute of Technology and Science, Gwalior whereby the
petitioner w.e.f. the date of order was compulsorily retired in the light of the
policy of retirement after completing 20 years of service or 50 years of age.
2. The subject matter in brief is that the petitioner at the time of
compulsory retirement was posted in the Madhav Institute of Technology
and Science, Gwalior which was an aided private education institute
governed by the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shiksnan Sanstha (Adhyapakon
Tatha Anya Karamchariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sanday) Adhiniyam,1978 (for
brevity "Adhiniyam, 1978") and by the The Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16368
2 WP-5319-2010
Shika Sanstha (Adhyapakom Tatha Anya Karmacharion ko Padachyut
Karne Sewa Se Hatane Sambandhi Prakriya) Niyam, 1983 (for brevity
"Rules of 1983"). The institute and its employees were not subjected to the
provisions of the age of Compulsory Retirement Rules as these Rules were
meant for persons who were members of the civil services of State as has
been defined under Article 311 of the Constitution Of India. The petitioner
till the date of compulsory retirement had worked with the institute for more
than last 32 years. Initially he was appointed as Store Keeper and thereafter,
he was promoted to Lower Division Clerk and stood at the first position in
the gradation list of U.D.C. prepared by the Institute and the petitioner's
promotion was due for the post of Head Clerk, but the Institute illegally and
arbitrarily promoted another person namely K.C. Tiwari, therefore, the
petitioner challenged his arbitrarily promotion and out of anger with the
aforesaid step taken by the petitioner, respondent No.2 issued the impugned
order by which services of the petitioner were abruptly terminated without
following due process on the pretext of compulsory retirement after
completing 20 years of service or 50 years of age invoking provisions of
Section 6 of the Adhiniyam 1978 and rules made thereunder. Thus, assailing
the aforesaid order passed by respondent No.2, the present petition has been
filed.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner while referring to the
provisions of Adhiniyam, 1978 has argued that the provisions of said
Adhiniyam were to apply to all those persons falling under Clause (e) of
Section 2 which defines "Institution" meaning a non Government School or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16368
3 WP-5319-2010
non government Educational Institution for higher education which for the
time being were receiving maintenance from the State Government or from
the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog as the case may be,
established; administered and managed by a society registered or deemed to
be registered under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam,
1973 and as respondent No.2/Institute was a non-government institute
receiving grants from the State, therefore, the provisions of said Adhiniyam
were very much applicable to the said institute and as per section 6 (iii) of
the said Adhiniyam, no teacher or an employee could be dismissed or
removed from service or his services, terminated except in accordance with
such procedure as may be prescribed and the procedure which is to be
followed is provided under Rules of 1983 for conducting an enquiry before
passing any order of removal or termination from service which admittedly
in the present case has not been followed, therefore, the order impugned
herein is bad in law and is liable to be set-aside.
4. Learned senior counsel has further argued that very scheme of
retirement of government employees of State of M.P. introduced vide order
No.C/24/2000/3/1 dated 22.8.2000 was not applicable to the present institute
as the same was not adopted which provided for compulsory retirement of
the employees of State Government who had completed 20 years of service
and 50 years of age and as the present respondent Institute was a non-
government educational institute, therefore, applying the aforesaid order
which was applicable to the Government Employees as defined under Article
311 of the Constitution of India was per se illegal.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16368
4 WP-5319-2010
5. Learned senior counsel further referring to policy/order dated
22.08.2000 wherein criteria for compulsory retirement of an employee is
given, had argued that at the time of evaluation, it is required to be seen
whether ACRs during the entire service of the employee was below 'kha'
(Good) and also it is required to analyize whether efficiency of the employee
is deteriorating gradually especially within five years of the aforesaid
consideration but herein case the same was not done and therefore, the
impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
6. Further while referring to minutes of meeting dated 13.05.2010 of
the Committee evaluating the petitioner's case, it was argued that there is no
consideration at all of the guidelines on the basis of which evaluation was to
be done, thus, the very recommendations made by the said Committee were
of no consequences and on the aforesaid basis, the petitioner could not had
been compulsory retired.
7. Further, it has been argued that the Appointing Authority of the
petitioner is Board of Directors of the respondent No.2/Institute and the said
Board of Directors are only empowered to pass an order with regard to
compulsory retirement or termination or whatever the case may be, but
herein case the order has not been passed or concurred by the Board of
Directors, therefore, the said order is bad in law. To bolster his submissions,
learned senior counsel has placed reliance in the matter of State of Punjab v.
Gurdas Singh reported in (1998) 4 SCC 92, Madan Mohan Choudhary vs.
State of Bihar and others reported in (1999 (3 ) SCC 3 96, State of Gujrat vs.
Umedbhai M. Patel reported in (2001) 3 SCC 314 and lastly in the matter
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16368
5 WP-5319-2010
o f Chandra Shekhar Shrivastava vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in
(2006) 1 MPLJ 183.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 had
controverted the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner
and had submitted that vide memo no.1016 dated 05.03.2008, the Board of
Governors of respondent No.2 in its meeting held on 03.10.2000 had
approved adoption of scheme of retirement of Govt. of M.P. vide order No.
C/24/2000/3/1 dated 22.8.2000 and thus submitted that the very contention
of petitioner that the scheme of retirement was not adopted by the Institute is
totally false.
9. While referring to the said policy, it was argued that for evaluating
the cases of persons who have completed 20 years of service and 50 years of
age, the policy had laid down certain guidelines which are as follows:-
(a) The honesty and integrity of the employee should not be doubtful
and for that the entire record of the employee is to be seen for recommending
his case for compulsory retirement.
(b) Reducing of physical efficiency.
(c) The reputation and working of the employee should be on the basis
of entire record but it is not necessary that every adverse charge or a charge
which is of adverse nature be communicated to the said government servant.
(d) During entire service tenure ACRs should not be below 'kha'
(Good) and whether there is deterioration in the working especially within
five years of evaluation.
10. In the context of the aforesaid guidelines, it was found by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16368
6 WP-5319-2010
Committee in its meeting dated 13.05.2010 that there were in all 43 incidents
wherein either notices were given for his behaviour or the petitioner was
cautioned and the said incidents were from the date of inception i.e. date of
appointment of petitioner till his compulsory retirement. Thus, as per Clause
(c) of the guidelines, the petitioner was not found fit to be continued and was
thus compulsorily retired, which cannot be faulted with.
11. Learned counsel while referring to the Rules namely Madhav
Engineering College Service Rules which were applicable to the respondent
No.2/Institute especially Clause 9(iii) which dealt with the "appointing
authority", it was argued that the appointments to the posts other than
Principal, Professors, Readers, Working Superintendent etc., were to be
made by Principal on recommendations of Staff Selection Committee. Thus,
when the Appointing Authority of the petitioner was not Board of Directors
as contended, the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner cannot be
said to bad in law.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 while referring to the
notification No.850-3037-XX-9-78 dated 13.08.1978 published in M.P. Gazette
Ext. date 01.09.1978 Page 1551 had argued that in exercise of powers conferred
by Section 8 of the Adhiniyam, 1978, the State Government has exempted all
non-government engineering colleges in the State from the provisions of
Adhiniyam of 1978, thus when the provisions of Adhiniyam, 1978 were not
applicable to the respondent No.2, the procedure as contained therein was not
required to be followed.
13. To butress his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No.2
has placed reliance in the matter of Smt. Radha Kumari Singh vs The Governing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16368
7 WP-5319-2010
Body of Mahanth Mahadevanand Mahila Mahavidyalaya and Others reported in
A I R 1976 PATNA 378 , Posts and Telegraphs Board and ors. vs. C.S.N. Murthy
reported in (1992) 2 SCC 317 and Satish Chandra & Anr. Vs. Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Delhi & Ors. reported in 1994(4) SCC 332.
14. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
15. The first and foremost question which arises before this Court is
whether the provisions of Adhiniyam, 1978 and Rules, 1983 are applicable to the
respondent No.2/Institute and if applicable, whether the provisions of Adhiniyam,
1978 have not been followed and if not whether the order of compulsory
retirement was bad in law ?
16. In this regard the notification as referred by counsel for the respondent
and mentioned above is required to be analyzed. For reference, the same is quoted
herein-below:-
[Notification No.850-3037-XX-9-78 dt. 13-8-1978 ; Published in
M.P. Gaz. Ext. dt. 1-9-1978 p. 1551 ]- In exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shiksnan
Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karamchariyon Ke Vetano Ka
Sanday) Adhiniyam,1978 (No.20 of 1978), the State Government
hereby exempts the following classes of institutions from all the
provisions of the said Act, namely :
All Non-Government Engineering Colleges in the State;
All Non-Government Polytechnic Institutions in the State.
17. The aforesaid notification was issued under the powers conferred under
Section 8 of the Adhiniyam, 1978 which provides p owers to exempt any
institution from provisions of the Act and as per the said notification, all
non-government engineering colleges within the State were exempted from
the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1978. Thus, when the State itself has
exempted the respondent No.2/Institute from the provisions of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16368
8 WP-5319-2010
Adhiniyam, 1978, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner that respondent No.2 is governed by the provisions of Adhiniyam,
1978 and Rules, 1983 framed thereunder appears to be misconceived. Thus,
this Court holds that the provisions of Section 6 of Adhiniyam, 1978 would
not have any applicability in the present matter.
18. The another aspect which needs consideration is whether the
Policy of Sate Government of compulsory retirement dated 22.08.2000
would be applicable to the respondent No.2/Institute which was in relation to
the compulsory retirement of State Government employees and whether in
absence of its adoption by the Institute it would be applicable and on its basis
whether the petitioner could have been compulsorily retired.
19. The aforesaid aspect in the light of the memo dated 05.03.2008
issued by Incharge Admin and Financial Affairs is negatived. In the said
memo referring to the meeting of the Board dated 03.10.2000, it has been
mentioned that the Board has approved the scheme of retirement of Govt. of
M.P. issued vide order dated 22.08.2000, thus, the scheme of retirement
which is stated to be applicable to the employees of State Government was
made applicable to the respondent No.2/Institute and in the said scheme,
following guidelines were laid down for consideration of the case of an
employee for compulsory retirement. The said guidelines are quoted herein-
below:-
1. छानबीन कर अिनवाय सेवािनवृ के िलये िनधा रत मानद ड:-
50 वष क आयु और अथवा 20 वष क सेवा पूण करने वाले शासक य सेवक
के िलये मूलभूत िनयम 56 एवं म य दे श िस वल सेवा पशन िनयम, 1976 के
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16368
9 WP-5319-2010
िनयम 42 के अधीन छानबीन करते समय अिनवाय सेवािनवृ करने क िलये
िन नानुसार दे खा जाये :-
1. ईमानदार तथा स यिन ा संदेहजनक होना । इस हे तु संबिधत शासक य सेवक
का संपूण अिभलेख दे खा जाकर अनुशंसा क जाए ।
2. शार रक मता म कमी ।
3. याित एवं काय मता का मू यांकन संबिधत शासक य सेवक के सेवाकाल के
स पूण अिभलेख के आधार पर कया जाये। यह आव यक नात है क येक
ितकूल ् अ यु अथवा ऐसी अ यु जसे ितकूल अ यु क सं ा द जा
सकती है , शासक य सेवक को संसूिचत क गई हो ।
रा य शासन, उ. . एवं अ य व बहार लाल 1994 क िस वल अपील मांक
6307 एआईआर 1995 सु ीम कोट 1161
4. स पूण सेवाकाल के अिभलेख का सम मू यांकन अ छा "ख" ण
े ी से कम
होना । इसके साथ यह भी दे खा जाये क शासक य सेवक क कायद ता म िगरावट
तो नह ं आ रह है । वशेषकर पछले 5 वष के काय का तर घट तो नह ं रहा है ।
20. From the said guidelines, it could be inferred that while
considering the case of an employee for compulsory retirement, his entire
service record is required to be scrutinized and from the minutes of the meeting
of the Committee held on 13.05.2010, it could be seen that from the 1989 till
2010, the petitioner was either issued letters, memos, show cause notices etc. with
regard to his conduct and working and every time he was cautioned not to repeat
his actions but the petitioner did not mend his ways, thus as per Clause 3 of the
guidelines, he had made himself vulnerable for consideration of his case for
compulsory retirement.
21. Since the counsel for the petitioner has come up with a case that the
said policy was not applicable to the respondent No.2/Institute and therefore, had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16368
10 WP-5319-2010
not raised an eyebrow to the aforesaid aspect though had tried to argue that the
ACRs and entire service record of the petitioner were not considered, the said plea
raised on his behalf cannot be accepted. The record which was considered by the
Committee speaks in volume about the honesty, integrity and working of the
petitioner, thus, to this extent also the petitioner has no case.
22. So far as competency of the Authority who had passed the order of
compulsory retirement is concerned, the rules governing the service conditions of
the employees of respondent No.2/Institute provides that Appointing Authority
for the posts other than Principal, Professors, Readers, Working Superintendent
etc. would be the Principal on recommendations of Staff Selection Committee.
Thus, the contention of the petitioner that, the Appointing Authority was since
Board of Directors, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, has also no force.
23. The judgments which have been cited by learned senior counsel for the
petitioner also speak about the consideration of the service record of a delinquent
at the time of consideration of his case for compulsory retirement, which herein
case has been analyzed and only thereafter, the order of compulsory retirement
was passed by the Competent Authority. Thus, the said judgment also do not
support the case of petitioner.
24. So far as the judgment cited by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in the
matter of Smt. Radha Kumari Singh (supra) is concerned, in the said matter, the
Division Bench of Patna High Court had held that the order of compulsory
retirement can be made subject to judicial review only on the ground of malafide ,
arbitrariness or perversity and that the rule of audi alteram partem has no
application since the rule of compulsory retirement, in such a situation, is not
penal in nature and as herein case no instance of any malafide, arbitrariness or
perversity has been shown, interference in the said matter is not required.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16368
11 WP-5319-2010
25. In the matter of Posts and Telegraphs Board (supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court had held that in the said matter, there was material which showed that the
efficiency of the petitioner was slackening in the last two years of the period
under review and it is, therefore, not possible for us to fault the conclusion of the
department as being mala fide, perverse, arbitrary or unreasonable. It was further
held that though it was true that the earlier record of the respondent was good but
if the record showed that the standard of work of the respondent had declined and
was not satisfactory, that was certainly material enabling the department to come
to a conclusion under Fundamental Rule 56(j).
26. The facts of the aforesaid case are similar to the present case as herein
also the efficiency of the petitioner was slackening and the standard of work of the
petitioner had declined and was not satisfactory, thus, it is not possible to fault
the conclusion of the department as being mala fide, perverse, arbitrary and
unreasonable.
27. In view of aforesaid discussion, no case is made out for interference by
this Court. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. No cost.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
