Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Smt. Afshan Jafri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50598
1 WP-31437-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 7 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 31437 of 2024
DR. SMT. AFSHAN JAFRI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Kumar Chansoriya - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Dheeraj Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
ORDER
The case of the petitioner is that she was initially appointed as Assistant
Professor and in view of provisions of M.P. Educational Service (Collegiate
Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 as per schedule 1 to the said Rules as existed till
date of amendment on 27.08.2015, she had acquired a right to be promoted as
Professor as the vacancies for Professors till the date of amendment were
unlimited in number.
2. It is contended that a coordinate Bench of this Court has also issued certain
directions in the matter in Writ Petition No.36053/2025 in the following manner:-
"Grievance of the petitioner is that, she is working as an
Associate Professor and she is required to be designated as a
Professor. Similar benefit has been extended to identically
situated employees, vide order dated 05-03- 2024, contained
in Annexure-P/3, which has been extended w.e.f. 01-01-
2015. It is contended by the counsel that, however, a few
Assistant Professors/Associate Professors were left over,
whose cases could not be considered and, therefore,
communication dated 02-12-2024 (Annexure-P/6) has been
sent and a list has been requisitioned in regard to those
Associate Professors/Assistant Professors, who have not
been designated so far.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50598
2 WP-31437-2024
2. The counsel for petitioner contends that appropriate
directions be issued to the respondents/Authority to
designate the petitioner as well, as a Professor with effect
from the due date, in the light of the communication dated
02-12-2024 (Annexure-P/6).
3. Taking into consideration the aforesaid innocuous
prayer, without expressing any opinion on merits, this writ
petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1,
to take into consideration the representation submitted by
the petitioner vide Annexure-P/5, dated 06-04-2024, within
a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified
copy of this order in the light of the communication dated
02-12-2024 (Annexure-P/6) by passing a well reasoned and
speaking order in accordance with law.
4. It is further directed that, if the petitioner is found
entitled for the relief which she is praying by way of his
representation, and there is no impediment or embargo, the
same would be extended to petitioner within a further period
of 30 days, without compelling her to revisit this Court for
the said purpose.
5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly."
3. It is further contended that the State Government has already contemplated to
provide time bound promotion to all left out Assistant Professors to the post of
Professors who had acquired eligibility upto 26.08.2015 and in that regard letter
Annexure P-6 has already been circulated to all Regional Additional Directors by
the Commissioner, Higher Education and the coordinate Bench in Writ Petition
No.36053/2025 has directed to finalize the matter.
4. It is further contended that this Court in Writ Petition No.15013/2013 has also
taken note of pre-amended provisions of the Rules of 1990 and in para 14 of the
judgment dated 04.09.2025, has held that the posts of Professors have become
definite to 704 in number now after 27.08.2015 but the Teachers who had
acquired the right to be promoted from a date prior to amendment have rightly
been promoted even after amendment from retrospective date. Para 14 of the said
order is as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50598
3 WP-31437-2024
"14. There was subsequent amendment in the Rules of 1990
in the year 2015 and by way of amendment dated
27/08/2015, the posts of Professors were made definite to
704 posts and now a quota of direct recruitment and
promotion has been carved out i.e. 25% by direct
recruitment and 75% by promotion. Now the system of
promotion irrespective of number of vacancies has been
done away with, but those teachers who had acquired the
right to be promoted from a date prior to amendment, have
rightly been promoted even after the amendment from
retrospective date."
5. It is contended that various other similarly situated Assistant Professors have
been promoted even after amendment from retrospective date and the issue has
been conclusively decided by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner may also be
promoted in similar terms.
6. Considering the aforesaid, by following same ratio, it is directed that the case
of the petitioner shall be considered as per the unamended Rules as existing prior
to 27.08.2015, provided the petitioner had earned all the eligibility requirements
upto 26.08.2015.
7. Let consideration be made and necessary consequential order be issued within
90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
8. In the above terms, petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm
