Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Jaydeep Parashar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-GWL:23441
1 WP. No. 4454 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 22nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4454 of 2020
DR. JAYDEEP PARASHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Kumar Sharma- Senior Advocate with Shri Kashif Hussain-
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri B.M. Patel - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri Anand Vinod Bhardwaj- Advocate for respondent No.4.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):
"i) That the respondents no.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for regularizing on the post of
Assistant Professor (Law) as par with the incumbents mentioned in
Annexure -P/15 and grant all the benefits of regular employees as per
the recommendations of University Grant Commission alongwith all
consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.
ii) Cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or direction
deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in the favour of
the petitioner."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-GWL:23441
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that
respondent No.2 framed a policy for appointment of Teachers, Librarians and
Sports Officer in case of availability of vacancies in the colleges laying down the
procedure for such appointments and accordingly issued directions to all the
Principals of Government Colleges. In pursuance of the above instructions,
respondent No.3 invited applications of the eligible candidates for appointment
against the post of Assistant Professor (Law). As the petitioner was fulfilling all
the eligibility criteria, he duly submitted his candidature form in the said
recruitment and vide order dated 07.09.2000, petitioner was initially appointed as
Law Teacher against the vacant post of Assistant Professor (Law), however, the
said appointment was made on contract basis. Initially, appointment was made
for 89 days and thereafter the contract period was extended from time to time and
petitioner is still working against the vacant post of Assistant Professor (Law) in
Government Nehru College, Ashok Nagar. Thereafter, vide order dated
24.07.2006 petitioner was further appointed for the academic session 2006-07 in
temporary capacity till the appointment of Law Teacher by the State
Government. At present, petitioner is still continuing on the said post.
3. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that since 2000 petitioner has been
working on vacant post and in view of judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors in C.A.
No.-014831-014831 - 2024 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.5580 of 2024] and order
dated 22.08.2024 passed in the case of The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. Vs.
Gopi Sao & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.(s).8097-8122/2024, petitioner is entitled
for regularization. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that every year
respondent No.3 has forwarded the information to respondent No.4 from time to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-GWL:23441
time in which it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner is working as a law
Teacher against the vacant post of Assistant Professor and on the basis of the said
information respondent No.4 has renewed the recognition of the Law College run
by respondent No.1 to 3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that since 2000
petitioner has been working on the vacant post, therefore he is entitled for
regularization on the basis of aforesaid judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Jaggo (supra) and Gopi Sao (supra) and the communication dated
18.05.2011/23.05.2011 and therefore present petition may be disposed of with a
direction to consider the case of petitioner for regularization.
4. Learned counsel for respondents have not objected to the limited prayer
made by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner.
5. Considering the same, present petition is disposed of with a direction to
petitioner to submit a fresh and detailed representation before the competent
authority/respondent No.2 within a period of three weeks from today and
respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to decide such representation in
the light of the aforesaid judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Jaggo (supra) and Gopi Sao (supra), communication dated
18.05.2011/23.05.2011 and other relevant circulars pertaining to regularization,
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the case.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
