[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Ramji Yadav vs Chancellor Of University And 5 Ors. on 26 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
1 W.P. No. 11550/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No. 11550 of 2012
DR. RAMJI YADAV
Versus
CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITY AND 5 ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Dr. Ramji Yadav - petitioner appeared in person.
Shri Kushagra Singh - Deputy Government Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Akash Sharma - Advocate for the respondents No.2 to
4/Vikram University, Ujjain.
Shri Ajinkya Dagaonkar - Advocate for the respondents No.5 and 6
by V.C.
___________________________________________________________________
Reserved on : 19/02/2026
Post on : 26/03/2026
___________________________________________________________________
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is essentially aggrieved
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
by and has laid challenge to the following actions and orders of the
respondent authorities:
(i) The minutes of the emergency meeting of the Executive
Council of the Respondent No.3 (University) dated 18/09/2012
(Annexure P-1), whereby a resolution was passed to annul the
appointment order of the petitioner dated 14/02/1996 from the post of
Lecturer in the Department of Computer Science and Application, after
a lapse of 17 years.
(ii) The show-cause notice dated 16/01/2012 issued by the
Respondent No.1 (Chancellor) to the Respondent No.4 (Executive
Council) through the Respondent No.2, along with the subsequent order
dated 24/01/2012 issued by the Respondent No.3 to the petitioner
(Annexure P-2).
(iii) The notice dated 19/10/2012 (Annexure P-3) issued by the
Respondent No.1 to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit his case
pursuant to the recommendation of the Respondent No. 4.
Facts of the Case
2. The factual matrix of the case reveals that the Respondent No.3
University issued an advertisement dated 12/01/1995 (Annexure P-4)
inviting applications for various posts, including two vacant posts of
Lecturer in Computer Science and Applications, of which one post was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
reserved for the OBC category and the other for the General category.
3. The minimum eligibility criteria provided along with the
application forms prescribed a good academic record with at least 55%
marks or an equivalent grade at the Master's degree level in the relevant
subject. It further required candidates to have cleared the eligibility test
for lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR, or a similar test accredited by
the University Grants Commission. A note appended to the
advertisement stipulated that reservation to the backward classes
belonging to the creamy layer shall not apply as prescribed by the State
Government from time to time.
4. The petitioner, possessing a B.Tech and M.Tech in Computer
Science, and having passed the GATE examination in 1993 with an
87.67 percentile score, applied for the said post under the OBC
category.
5. The petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee and was
appointed to the post of Lecturer in the Department of Computer
Science & Application vide order dated 14/02/1996 (Annexure P-6).
The petitioner's services were subsequently confirmed with effect from
16/02/1998, after the completion of a two-year probation period,
following approval by the Executive Council on 01/07/1998. The
petitioner was later granted a promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer
under the career advancement scheme with effect from 03/09/2002.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
6. Subsequently, the petitioner raised a complaint regarding the
illegal appointment of one Shri Kshmasheel Mishra to the post of
Reader in the same department. Following an inquiry by Respondent
No.3, the appointment of Shri Mishra was cancelled vide order dated
25/09/2009.
7. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged before the Chancellor
(Respondent No.1) challenging the petitioner's initial appointment.
Consequently, Respondent No.1 issued a show-cause notice dated
16/01/2012 to the Executive Council regarding the petitioner's
appointment, citing a lack of the additional eligibility of passing the
UGC/CSIR or similar accredited test, failure to pass the NET/SLET
within two years or obtain a Ph.D., and an alleged violation of Rule 8 of
the Reservation Act, 1994, by appointing a candidate from outside the
State of Madhya Pradesh.
8. The petitioner submitted his reply on 01/02/2012, clarifying that
his appointment was as per the rules. He submitted that GATE is a
similar test to NET, that UGC was not conducting NET for Computer
Science at the time of the advertisement, and that his appointment under
the OBC category was lawful as the recruitment was on an all-India
basis and he possessed an OBC certificate from the competent authority
in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner also acquired a Ph.D. degree in
Computer Science on 10/06/2011.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
9. The Executive Council formed a four-member Committee on
06/02/2012 to consider the petitioner's case. The said committee, in its
report dated 27/03/2012, did not find the petitioner guilty prima facie.
However, another committee was constituted, which resulted in the
Executive Council passing a resolution in an emergency meeting on
18/09/2012 to annul the petitioner's appointment. Following this, the
petitioner was afforded a personal hearing by Respondent No.1 on
12/11/2012, culminating in the issuance of the impugned notices and
resolutions.
Contentions of the Petitioner
10. It is contended by the petitioner that the impugned notices and the
recommendation of the Executive Council to annul the appointment
after an inordinate delay of 17 years are highly belated, arbitrary,
discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India.
11. It is asserted that the actions of the respondents are a colourable
exercise of power and suffer from mala fides. The petitioner alleges that
Respondent No.2 deliberately manipulated the committee formation to
obtain an adverse report against the petitioner to cause harassment.
12. It is submitted that the University had already investigated the
matter of his appointment under the reserved category. In a meeting
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
held on 03/03/1997, the Executive Council passed a resolution
affirming that his appointment was as per the rules, which reads as
under:
"प्रकरण से सम्बन्धित कुलाधधपधत सधिवालय का पत्र क 1896/ यू वी-3/96 धद
10.12.96 तथा पूवव कुलपधत द्वारा उत्तर भे जे गए कफेक्स धद 27.1296 एव ों
वधध सलाहकार से प्राप्त कायव पररषद के समक्ष प्रस्तु त धकया गया। धविार
धवमर्व के उपरान्तु धनश्चय धकया गया धक धवधध सलाहकार के मत से उका
धनयुन्धिया धनयमानु सार की गई है कायव पररषद के सहमधत व्यि करते हुए
राज्यपाल सधिवालय क सू धित धकया जाए ।"
13. It is further argued that the petitioner's appointment is protected
by the principle of promissory estoppel as laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills
Co.Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(1979) 2 SCC 409],
specifically relying upon the proposition that :-
"The law may, therefore, now be taken to be settled as a
result of this decision, that where the Government makes a
promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by
the promisee and, in fact, the promisee, acting in reliance
on it, alters his position, the Government would be held
bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable
against the Govern-ment at the instance of the promisee,
notwithstanding that there is no consi-deration for the
promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a
formal contract as required by Article 299 of the
Constitution"
14. By way of rejoinder, the petitioner contends that the
advertisement dated 12/01/1995 was issued on a pan-India basis,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
containing no requirement of domicile for the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Furthermore, it is contended that UGC was not conducting the NET
examination for Computer Science at the time of the advertisement. The
petitioner relies on the averment made by the UGC in its reply that "the
UGC is conducting the NET Examination for Computer Science since
June 1995."
15. The petitioner also highlights parity with one Dr. Umesh Kumar
Singh, who was appointed under the same advertisement without NET
qualification, whose appointment was upheld by the University on the
ground that AICTE did not mandate NET/SLET for Computer Science
at that time.
Contentions of the Respondents
16. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of Respondent No.6
(AICTE) that the writ petition is not maintainable against it, as no
interim relief has been sought against the AICTE.
17. It is submitted by Respondent No.6 that AICTE does not act as a
reviewing or appellate authority in day-to-day administrative matters,
such as appointments, promotions, or service conditions, which fall
within the exclusive domain of the concerned institutions, universities,
or State Government. The responsibility for payments and appointments
rests with the respective college and society.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
18. It is contended by the respondent Vikram University that the
petitioner was not possessing the required essential educational
qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement dated 12/01/1995. As
per the application form received on 24/03/1995, the petitioner only
possessed a B.Tech degree and was pursuing his M.Tech.
19. It is submitted that pursuant to the Hon'ble Governor's letter dated
12/09/2012 directing the Executive Council to take a final decision, the
Executive Council in its meeting dated 18/09/2012 resolved that the
petitioner's appointment was not in accordance with the rules and the
prescribed educational qualifications. The operative portion of the
resolution is reproduced as under:
"अतः धवश्वधवद्यालय अधधधनयम, 1973 (क्र. 22 वषव 1973) की धारा 12 (4)
(क) के प्रावधान अनुसार महामधहम कुलाधधपधत जी ने आपके माध्यम से
धवश्वधवद्यालय की कायवपररषद क यह 'कारण बताओ सू िना पत्र जारी करने
का आदे र् धदया है धक धवश्वधवद्यालय में अधधधनयम की धारा 52 प्रभावर्ील
ह ने के कारण धारा 52 (4) (पाों ि) के तहत प्राप्त र्न्धिय ों के अनु सार कुलपधत
द्वारा लेक्चरार, कोंप्यूटर साईस के पद के धलये धनधाव ररत अधनवायव य ग्यता के
अधतररि आवश्यक पात्रता परीक्षा ज धक यू जीसी / सी.एस.आई.आर. द्वारा
आय धजत की गई ह अथवा समकक्ष क ई परीक्षा ज धक यू .जी.सी. द्वारा मान्य
की गई ह उत्तीणव न ह ने पर एवों यू.जी.सी. के पत्र धदनाों क 18.05.1998 में धलये
गये धनदे र् अनुसार 2 वषव में ने ट/स्ले ट परीक्षा उत्तीणव नहीों करने अथवा
पी.एि.डी. उपाधध प्राप्त नहीों कर सकने पर एवों आरक्षण अधधधनयम 1994 के
धनयम 8 का उल्लोंघन कर म. प्र. राज्य से बाहर के श्री रामजी यादव क
लेक्चरार कोंप्यूटर साईस के पद पर धनयु न्धि प्रदान करने सों बोंधी धवश्वधवद्यालय
का आदे र् क्र. डे व./स्था./96/1042 धदनाों क 14.02.1996 क् ों न बाधतल धकया
जावे धनष्कधषव त धबदु ओों पर कायव पररषद् की सहमधत क ध्यान में रखते हुये
महामधहम कुलाधधपधत जी ज भी धनणव य लेगे तद् नुसार कायव वाही की जावे गी।"
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
20. The University further contends that the petitioner is not entitled
to the benefit of OBC reservation within the State. It is asserted that the
petitioner failed to submit a certificate establishing that he does not fall
within the creamy layer in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Because
Vikram University is a State University, the reservation rules of the
State of Madhya Pradesh are strictly applicable.
Analysis and Conclusion
21. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties at length and
meticulously perused the voluminous record. The fundamental issue
before this Court is whether the respondents acted arbitrarily in
issuing the impugned minutes of the emergency meeting dated
18/09/2012 (Annexure P-1), the show-cause notice dated
16/01/2012 (Annexure P-2), and the notice dated 19/10/2012
(Annexure P-3). These impugned actions collectively resolved to
annul the petitioner's appointment order dated 14/02/1996 from the
post of Lecturer in the Department of Computer Science and
Application, after a considerable lapse of 17 years. The Court is
tasked with evaluating the legality of these actions in light of the
statutory framework and the specific pleadings advanced by both
sides.
22. The petitioner vehemently contends that his appointment was
strictly in accordance with the advertisement dated 12/01/1995. He
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
asserts that he possessed a B.Tech degree, subsequently obtained an
M.Tech degree, and cleared the GATE examination in 1993. The
petitioner argues that since the UGC was not conducting the NET
examination for Computer Science at the relevant time, his GATE
qualification must be treated as a valid equivalent. To bolster his
claim of non-arbitrariness, he relies upon the Executive Council's
earlier resolution dated 03/03/1997, wherein it was recorded that
"विवि सलाहकार के मत से वियुविया वियमािुसार की गई है कायय पररषद के सहमवत
व्यि करते हुए राज्यपाल सवििालय को सूवित ककया जाए।"
23. However, the pleadings of the respondent University reveal
glaring foundational defects in the petitioner's initial appointment.
The advertisement dated 12/01/1995 explicitly mandated a "Good
academic record with at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade at
Master's degree level". As per the University's records, on the final
date of application submission (20/03/1995), the petitioner only
possessed a B.Tech degree and was merely pursuing his M.Tech.
The mandatory requirement of possessing a Master's degree on the
crucial date was evidently not met. Furthermore, the petitioner
failed to clear the NET/SLET examination within the subsequent
two-year period, as mandated by the UGC directives dated
18/05/1998.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
24. Proceeding to the merits for the adjudication of this petition,
the pivotal question is whether petitioner was legally appointed to
the post, possessing all the educational qualifications required for
the OBC category.
25. The educational qualifications required, as per the
advertisement, mandated: "Good academic record with atleast 55%
marks or equivalent grade at Master's degree level in the relevent
subject from the Indian University or equivalent degree from a
foreign University." Furthermore, it required: "Candidates besides
fulfilling the above qualifications should have cleared the eligibility
test for Lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test
accredited by the University Grants Commission." Exemptions
were strict: "Candidates awarded M.Phil. Degree upto 31st
December 1992 and who will submit Ph.D. Degree upto 31-12-
1993 will, however, be exempted from qualifying the eligibility
test. Note:- Good academic records means 50% marks in Higher
secondary and graduate level."
26. Upon perusal of the pleadings, it is unequivocally established
that petitioner lacked this essential eligibility. At the time of
application, he merely held a B.Tech degree, entirely lacking a
Master's degree with 55% marks. He also did not possess a
NET/SLET certificate, a Ph.D., or an M.Phil. degree.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
27. The University subsequently granted him ample opportunity
to pass the examination, but he could not. Despite a specific letter
issued by the University directing him to submit the NET/SLET
certificate within two years, petitioner failed to do so.
28. The law regarding appointments made without essential
educational qualifications is unforgiving. As held by the Apex
Court in Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services
Commission, (2008) 7 SCC 153 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 244 : 2008
SCC OnLine SC 465 at page 160:-
"18. If the essential educational qualification for
recruitment to a post is not satisfied, ordinarily the
same cannot be condoned. Such an act cannot be
ratified. An appointment which is contrary to the
statute/statutory rules would be void in law. An
illegality cannot be regularised, particularly, when
the statute in no unmistakable term says so. Only an
irregularity can be. [See Secy., State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] , National Fertilizers
Ltd. v. Somvir Singh [(2006) 5 SCC 493 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 1152] and Post Master General,
Kolkata v. Tutu Das (Dutta) [(2007) 5 SCC 317 :
(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 179] .]"
29. This principle was echoed in State of Orissa v. Mamata
Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 83 : 2011
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
SCC OnLine SC 317 at page 453, where the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held:
"39. In Prit Singh (Dr.) v. S.K. Mangal [1993 Supp
(1) SCC 714 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 246 : (1993) 23
ATC 783] this Court examined the case of a person
who did not possess the requisite percentage of
marks as per the statutory requirement and held that
he cannot hold the post observing : (SCC pp. 718-
19, paras 12-13)
"12. ... It need not be pointed out that the sole
object of prescribing qualification that the
candidate must have a consistently good academic
record with first or high second class Master's
degree for appointment to the post of a Principal, is
to select a most suitable person in order to maintain
excellence and standard of teaching in the
institution apart from administration. ... The
appellant had not secured even second class marks
in his Master of Arts Examination whereas the
requirement was first or high second class (55%).
The irresistible conclusion is that on the relevant
date the appellant did not possess the requisite
qualifications.
13. ... on the date of the appointment the appellant
did not possess the requisite qualifications and as
such his appointment had to be quashed."
(emphasis added)
40. In Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education
Services Commission [(2008) 7 SCC 153 : (2008) 2
SCC (L&S) 244 : AIR 2008 SC 1817] this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
examined the issue as to whether a person lacking
eligibility can be appointed and if so, whether such
irregularity/illegality can be cured/condoned. After
considering the provisions of the U.P. Secondary
Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 and the
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, this Court
came to a conclusion that lacking eligibility as per
the rules/advertisement cannot be cured at any stage
and making appointment of such a person
tantamounts to an illegality and not an irregularity,
and thus cannot be cured. A person lacking the
eligibility cannot approach the court for the reason
that he does not have a right which can be enforced
through court."
30. Finally, regarding the OBC certificate, the record indicates
that petitioner has taken the declaration of being a non-creamy layer
candidate. The contention of the petitioner that petitioner belonged
to the State of Uttar Pradesh and cannot be given the benefit of
OBC reservation in Madhya Pradesh was a matter to be scrutinized
by the examining authority at the initial stage. This belated
contention cannot be raised after the respondent has worked for so
long a period.
31. However, the lack of essential educational qualifications at
the inception of the appointment is an incurable statutory defect that
renders the initial selection void ab initio.
32. To overcome these legal hurdles, the petitioner heavily relies
on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, citing the Supreme Court's
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
decision in M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co.Ltd. vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ((1979) 2 SCC 409). The petitioner
quotes:
"The law may, therefore, now be taken to be settled as
a result of this decision, that where the Government
makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be
acted on by the promisee and, in fact, the promisee,
acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the
Government would be held bound by the promise...".
33. This Court finds that the case relied upon by the petitioner is
entirely distinguishable and inapplicable to the facts at hand. It is a
well-settled principle of service jurisprudence that there can be no
estoppel against a statute. If an initial appointment is made in
contravention of statutory eligibility criteria and state reservation
rules, such an appointment is void ab initio. The mere passage of
time, even 17 years, cannot legitimize an appointment that suffered
from incurable jurisdictional and statutory defects at its very
inception.
34. The Chancellor (Respondent No.1) is vested with expansive
and overriding supervisory powers under Section 12(4)(A) of the
Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidhyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. Upon
noticing that the appointment violated essential qualifications and
the State's reservation policy, the Chancellor was fully justified in
directing the Executive Council to issue the show-cause notice. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
subsequent resolution of the Executive Council dated 18/09/2012,
returning the matter for the Chancellor's final decision, reflects a
lawful exercise of statutory duties. Therefore, this Court holds that
the respondents have acted legally in passing the said orders, and no
arbitrary or colorable exercise of power is established.
35. Having concluded that the annulment of the appointment
suffers from no legal infirmity, this Court must address the
equitable aspect of the petitioner having rendered continuous
service for 17 years. The petitioner discharged the duties of a
Lecturer, and later as a Senior Lecturer, and the University utilized
his services during this extensive period. While his appointment is
liable to be quashed on statutory grounds, it would be highly
inequitable and unduly harsh to direct the recovery of the financial
benefits already disbursed to him for the work actually extracted by
the University.
36. In light of the elaborate analysis of the facts, grounds, and
statutory provisions, this Court issues the following directions:-
1. The minutes of the emergency meeting dated 18/09/2012
(Annexure P-1), the show-cause notice dated 16/01/2012
(Annexure P-2), and the notice dated 19/10/2012 (Annexure
P-3) are upheld. The respondents acted legally and within
their statutory jurisdiction and are free to proceed ahead.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
2. No case for interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is made out, as the foundational
appointment was contrary to the statutory advertisement and
the Reservation Act, 1994.
3. However, balancing the equities of the case, it is made
explicitly clear that no recovery of salary or other financial
benefits paid to the petitioner during his 17 years of actual
service shall be made by the respondents.
4. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly
Dismissed.
37. Pending applications, if any, shall be disposed of accordingly.
No order as to cost.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
Aiyer*PS
