Dr. Ashok Sachdeva vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2026 Latest Caselaw 3244 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dr. Ashok Sachdeva vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2026

                         1 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8756
                                                                         W.P. No. 7148/2026
                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
                                                           PRADESH
                                                        AT INDORE
                                                             BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI


                                            WRIT PETITION No. 7148 of 2026
                                                   DR. ASHOK SACHDEVA
                                                                Versus
                                THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

                         Appearance:
                                  Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.
                                  Shri Sudeep Bhargav -Dy.A.G for the respondents/State.
                                  Shri Manoj Manav -Advocate for the respondent [R-4].

                                           WRIT PETITION No. 48091 of 2025
                                                   SMT. MANJU SHARMA
                                                                Versus
                                THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

                         Appearance:
                                  Shri Manoj Manav - Advocate for the petitioner.
                                  Shri Sudeep Bhargav -Dy.A.G for the respondents/State.
                                  Shri L. C. Patne -Advocate for the respondent [R-5].
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------



Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 4/2/2026
4:21:17 PM
                          2 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8756
                                                                     W.P. No. 7148/2026


                                                       Reserved on : 24/03/2026
                                                          Post on : 02/04/2026
                         ______________________________________________________
                                                                ORDER

This common order shall govern the disposal of two connected Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, namely W.P. No. 7148 of 2026 and W.P. No. 48091 of 2025. Both matters arise out of analogous facts and involve a common dispute regarding inter-se seniority and the consequential entitlement to hold the charge of Incharge Principal of the respondent College. W.P. No. 7148/2026 is treated as the lead case for the purpose of narrating the facts.

2. In W.P. No. 7148/2026, the petitioner (Dr. Ashok Sachdeva) prays for a writ of certiorari to quash the communication dated 29.01.2026 (Annexure P/10) issued by Respondent No. 2 (Under Secretary, Higher Education Department). By this communication, the authorities were directed to file a modified reply in the connected petition, thereby holding Respondent No. 4 (Dr. Manju Sharma) senior to the present petitioner.

3 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8756

3. In the connected petition, W.P. No. 48091/2025, the petitioner therein (Dr. Manju Sharma) challenges the orders dated 30.06.2025 and 29.07.2025. By virtue of these orders, the outgoing Principal, upon retirement, handed over the charge of Incharge Principal along with drawing and disbursing powers to Dr. Ashok Sachdeva, circumventing the alleged seniority of Dr. Manju Sharma and the prevailing departmental circular dated 15.02.2022.

Facts of the Case

4. It is the case of the petitioner that Dr. Ashok Sachdeva was initially appointed as an Assistant Professor in English on an ad-hoc basis on 15.11.1983, and his services were subsequently regularized on 30.10.1989. Dr. Manju Sharma was appointed as an Assistant Professor in Home Science on an ad-hoc basis on 12.09.1983, and her services were regularized prior to the petitioner on 10.03.1987.

5. Dr. Manju Sharma was promoted to the post of Professor under the M.P. Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990, on the recommendation of a duly constituted DPC, vide order dated 08.12.2006. On the other hand, Dr. Ashok Sachdeva was granted the designation of Professor vide order dated 13.06.2018. The State Government subsequently issued

4 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8756

an amendatory order on 20.06.2018, granting him the said designation with effect from 01.01.2006.

6. The dispute erupted upon the retirement of the outgoing Principal in June 2025. By an order dated 30.06.2025, the charge of Incharge Principal was handed over to Dr. Ashok Sachdeva. The Commissioner, Higher Education Department, subsequently passed a formal order dated 29.07.2025 appointing Dr. Sachdeva as Incharge Principal.

7. During the pendency of W.P. No. 48091/2025 challenging the aforesaid charge handover, this Court passed an interim order on 15.12.2025 directing the respondents to examine the seniority of the rival claimants. Pursuant to this judicial directive, the State Government issued the impugned communication dated 29.01.2026, determining Dr. Manju Sharma as senior to Dr. Ashok Sachdeva.

Contentions of the Petitioner

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Ashok Sachdeva, vehemently contends that his elevation to the cadre of Professor was a substantive "promotion" and not merely a "designation". It is submitted that a bare perusal of the DPC minutes dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure P/4) reveals that the subject of the DPC itself was

5 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8756

"दिन ांक 1.1.2006 की स्थिस्ि में सह यक प्र ध्य पक से प्र ध्य पक के पि पर

पिोन्नस्ि/पिन म पररवितन दकये ज ने स्वषयक।" The words "पिोन्नस्ि /

पिन म पररवितन" have been used interchangeably throughout the clauses. It is further argued that there is no difference in the DPC minutes of 2006 (for Respondent No. 4) and 2018 (for the petitioner), and both service books mention the entry type as "promotion".

9. The petitioner submits that the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2010, do not discriminate between a "promoted" and "designated" Professor. Under the Career Advancement Scheme (Appendix-I, Clause 1(ii) and 2(xiii)), the words "promoted, appointed or designated as Professor" are used interchangeably. It is stated that the State Government amended the Recruitment Rules of 1990 by inserting Rule 16-A on 27.08.2015, making the CAS and UGC Regulations applicable to this cadre.

10. It is heavily canvassed that the petitioner was granted retrospective promotion with effect from 01.01.2006 by virtue of the amendatory order dated 20.06.2018, which was a conscious policy decision. The DPC specifically considered the past 5 years' ACRs (2001 to 2006) and vacancies up to 31.12.2005. To fortify

6 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8756

this, the petitioner relies upon the coordinate bench decision in the case of Dr. Girish Verma v. State of M.P.,(WP No. 11987/2025, decided on 04/09/2025 read with order dated 17/11/2025) where a similarly situated professor (Dr. Sameer Kumar Shukla) was granted retrospective seniority based on the very same order dated 20.06.2018. Conversely, Respondent No. 4's promotion in 2006 was not given retrospective effect.

11. The petitioner contends that the State Government had already filed a reply in W.P. No. 48091/2025 categorically admitting that Respondent No. 4 is junior to the petitioner. Relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly & Others (2008) 7 SCC 85, it is argued that a defendant admitting a plea in their written statement cannot be permitted to amend the same to deny or dispute the claim.

12. Assailing the impugned communication dated 29.01.2026, the petitioner submits it is illegal, arbitrary, and violates the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was afforded. It is argued that Respondent No. 2 (Under Secretary) lacks the jurisdiction to bypass an order dated 20.06.2018 which was expressed in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jitendra Kumar Shrivastava v. State of M.P. & Others W.A.No.

7 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8756

903/2025, decided on 21.4.2025] to contend that modifying a Governor's order without assent violates Article 166 of the Constitution of India.

13. Countering the arguments of Respondent No. 4, the petitioner submits that the judgment in Dr. Ramnarayan Swarnkar v. State of M.P. (WP No. 43990/2025, decided on 11.02.2026) is distinguishable as it did not consider the amendatory order dated 20.06.2018. It is further argued that his erroneous inclusion in the Assistant Professor gradation list in March 2026 was immediately protested. Regarding his own act of forwarding a seniority list placing Respondent No. 4 at Serial No. 1, the petitioner asserts that there can be no "estoppel against the law". Finally, it is submitted that granting actual financial benefits from a prospective date (2018) under the principle of 'no work no pay' does not extinguish retrospective cadre seniority from 2006.

Contentions of the Respondents

14. Per contra, the learned counsel for Dr. Manju Sharma raises a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner's initial appointment was contrary to the rules, as he lacked the minimum requisite qualification of 55% marks at the PG level. Consequently, his regularization was

8 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8756

delayed until he acquired the qualification in 1989. In contrast, Respondent No. 4 was appointed earlier in 1983 and regularized in 1987, making her senior in the feeder cadre itself.

15. The respondents strongly contend that there is no provision for "designation" in the Recruitment Rules of 1990. It is argued that "promotion" and "designation" are distinct concepts in service jurisprudence. Promotion entails an upgradation of financial benefits coupled with higher responsibilities, whereas "designation" under the 2018 orders was merely a cosmetic upgradation without immediate financial benefits from the retrospective date. The petitioner received the financial benefits of the higher AGP only from 2018.

16. The respondents further submit that the petitioner has relied upon a fabricated e-service book showing his joining as Professor from 01.01.2006, which is factually impossible as the order itself was issued in 2018. Against this fabrication, Respondent No. 4 has already lodged a formal complaint with the higher authorities on 22.01.2026.

17. It is categorically pointed out that the petitioner, while acting as Incharge Principal, himself prepared and forwarded a seniority list of the college professors on 05.07.2025 (Annexure R4/4). In

9 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8756

this very communication, the petitioner explicitly placed Dr. Manju Sharma at Serial No. 1 as the senior-most professor. Having admitted her seniority in official correspondence, the petitioner is now estopped from claiming otherwise.

18. The State supports the impugned communication dated 29.01.2026, submitting that it was issued strictly in compliance with the clear directions passed by this Court on 15.12.2025 to determine inter-se seniority. The respondents argue that the ratio of Jitendra Kumar Shrivastava is entirely distinguishable, as the impugned communication was not a unilateral administrative override of a Governor's order, but a dutiful compliance with a judicial mandate.

Analysis and Conclusion

19. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters of inter-se seniority is limited to scrutinizing the statutory validity of administrative actions, ensuring procedural fairness, and preventing arbitrary exercise of power. The core issue falling for consideration is whether a retrospective "designation" granted in 2018 legally supersedes a regular, substantive "promotion" granted in 2006 for the purpose of

10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8756

determining seniority and the right to hold the charge of Incharge Principal.

20. To resolve this controversy, a strict textual analysis of the petitioner's foundational document the order dated 13.06.2018 (Annexure P/5) is necessary. The order stipulates:

"कम ांक एफ-F1-4/2018 - मध्यप्रिेश शैक्षस्िक सेव ( मह स्वद्य लयीन श ख ) भिी स्नयन, 1990 की अनुसूची-2 के क लम 3 के खण्ड (च र) (ब) के अांिगति र ज्य श सन द्व र प्रिर श्रेिी वेिनम न रूपये 12000-420- 18300 में क यतरि स्नम्नस्लस्खि सह यक प्र ध्य पकों को सम न वेिनम न में थि न पन्न रूप से अथि ई रूप से आग मी आिेश िक उक्त स्नयमों के अांिगति प्र ध्य पक, पिन म प्रि न दकय ज ि है। सह यक प्र ध्य पक से प्र ध्य पक के पि पर पिन म प्र प्त सह यक प्र ध्य पक क पि सांबांस्िि अस्िक री द्व र प्र ध्य पक के पि पर क यतभ र ग्रहि करने के दिन ांक से प्र ध्य पक पि म न ज वेग । सांबांस्िि प्र ध्य पक के पिन म होने/सेव स्नवृत्त होने य अन्य क रि से पि ररक्त होने पर उक्त पि पुनः सह यक प्र ध्य पक के पि सांवगत में पररवर्तिि हो ज वेग ।"

21. The language employed by the State is unambiguous. The petitioner was granted the designation of Professor strictly on an "थि न पन्न रूप से अथि ई रूप से" (officiating and temporary basis) in the same pay scale. More importantly, Clause 2 of the said order directs:

"2/ इन प्र ध्य पकों की पिथि पन सह यक प्र ध्य पक के सांवगत के पिों के स्वरूद्ध म नी ज वेगी। सह यक प्र ध्य पक के पि से प्र ध्य पक के पि पर पिन म की स्िस्ि से सह यक प्र ध्य पक क पि प्र ध्य पक के पि में उन्नस्यि म न ज वेग ।"

11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8756

This confirms that the petitioner was not appointed against a substantive vacancy in the cadre of Professor. Instead, his existing post in the feeder cadre (Assistant Professor) was merely upgraded in a localized manner to accommodate the designation.

22. The amendatory order dated 20.06.2018 (Annexure P/6), which forms the bedrock of the petitioner's claim for retrospectivity, merely modifies the effective date of the aforementioned temporary designation. It explicitly uses the phrase "प त्रि दिन ांक से प्र ध्य पक पिन म प्रि न दकय ज ि है" (designation of

Professor is granted from the eligibility date). In service jurisprudence, a retrospective financial or cosmetic upgradation granted to mitigate stagnation under a Career Advancement Scheme cannot obliterate the vested cadre seniority of an employee who was substantively promoted through regular channels years prior.

23. The petitioner's reliance on the UGC Regulations, 2010, and his written arguments regarding the interchangeable use of terms in the DPC minutes, is misplaced in the context of administrative seniority. While UGC norms govern academic equivalence and pay scales under the CAS, inter-se seniority for administrative control (such as holding the charge of Principal) is strictly governed by the date of substantive appointment/promotion into the cadre against a clear vacancy under the State Rules.

12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8756

24. In stark contrast to the petitioner's temporary designation, the record firmly establishes that Dr. Manju Sharma (Respondent No.

4) was substantively promoted to the post of Professor vide order dated 08.12.2006 (Annexure P/1). Her substantive absorption into the higher cadre is corroborated by the official gradation list dated 01.04.2009 (Annexure P/3), wherein she is placed at Serial No. 431. The petitioner has failed to adduce any equivalent, authenticated gradation list establishing his seniority over Respondent No. 4.

25. Furthermore, the petitioner's own administrative conduct operates heavily against him. Annexure R5/4 is a seniority list of college professors prepared and forwarded by the petitioner himself on 05.07.2025 while functioning as Incharge Principal. In this official document, he explicitly placed Dr. Manju Sharma at Serial No. 1. While there is no estoppel against a statute, such an unequivocal administrative admission of fact in official correspondence carries significant evidentiary weight. Having acknowledged her seniority in the regular course of official business, the petitioner cannot arbitrarily re-rank himself to cling to the administrative charge.

26. The petitioner's challenge to the impugned communication dated 29.01.2026 is thoroughly misconceived. The said communication was not a unilateral, malafide exercise of power by

13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8756

an Under Secretary attempting to overreach a Governor's order. Rather, it was an administrative compliance report generated strictly pursuant to the interim direction passed by this Court on 15.12.2025, which mandated the State to verify the actual inter-se seniority. Consequently, the ratio laid down in Jitendra Kumar Shrivastava (Supra) is wholly inapplicable to the present facts.

27. Similarly, the reliance on Gautam Sarup (Supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner. The State is not barred from correcting a factual error in its pleadings or clarifying its stand when explicitly directed by a Constitutional Court to ascertain the correct legal position regarding seniority.

28. The inescapable conclusion is that Dr. Manju Sharma, having been substantively promoted to the cadre of Professor on 08.12.2006, is undisputedly senior to Dr. Ashok Sachdeva, who only assumed the designated charge on 13.06.2018. Therefore, the action of handing over the charge of Incharge Principal to the petitioner vide orders dated 30.06.2025 and 29.07.2025 was patently illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the Higher Education Department's own circular dated 15.02.2022, which mandates that such charge be given to the senior-most Professor.

14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8756

29. Consequently, W.P. No. 7148/2026 filed by Dr. Ashok Sachdeva is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed and W.P. No. 48091/2025 filed by Dr. Manju Sharma is allowed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner Dr.Manju Sharma to work as Incharge Principal of the College till the regular appointment of Principal.

30. The impugned orders dated 30.06.2025 and 29.07.2025 (challenged in W.P. No. 48091/2025) are hereby quashed.

31. A copy of this order be placed in the record of connected W.P. No. 48091/2025.

32. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.

No order as to costs.

(Jai Kumar Pillai) Judge

hk/