Nisha Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35649
1 WA-1077-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 6 OF MAY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 1077 of 2026
NISHA PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma - Senior Advocate with Shri Aditya
Khandekar - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Samdarshi Tiwari - Senior`1 Advocate with Shri Palash
Upadhyay - Advocate for Caveator.
Shri Dr. S. S. Chauhan - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal
This writ appeal challenges the judgment dated 16.03.2026 passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2861/2026, whereby the petition filed
by the appellant Smt. Nisha Pandey, Senior Lecturer (Civil Engineering),
Government Polytechnic College, Rewa was dismissed, leaving undisturbed
the order dated 19.01.2026 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of
Technical Education, Skill Development and Employment, Government of
Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, by which the administrative charge of in-charge
Principal of the said college was transferred from the appellant to Dr.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/8/2026 5:00:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35649
2 WA-1077-2026
Rishikesh Tripathi (Respondent No. 4), a Lecturer in Mathematics.
2. The relevant background facts, as emerging from the record, may
be noticed briefly. The appellant was appointed as Lecturer (Civil
Engineering) on 09.07.2009. She was deputed to Government Polytechnic
College, Rewa on 28.05.2011 and was absorbed therein on 27.04.2018.
Respondent No. 4, Dr. Rishikesh Tripathi, was appointed as Lecturer
(Mathematics) on 07.09.2009 and was absorbed at Rewa only on 01.01.2025
nearly seven years after the appellant's absorption. By order dated
06.07.2023 issued by the Directorate of Technical Education, the
administrative charge of in-charge Principal was handed over to the appellant
as the senior-most teacher, upon the previous in-charge being transferred.
3. A precise chronological reading of the events on record is
essential to appreciating the challenge made in this appeal. The sequence is
as follows: On 25.06.2025, the appellant, in the discharge of her duties as in-
charge Principal, took disciplinary action against M/s MP Security and
Allied Services (Shri Santosh Pandey, proprietor) an outsourced cleaning
agency for financial irregularities and misconduct, and cancelled its
contract. On 30.07.2025, a complaint letter was received by the Directorate
of Technical Education from the Assistant Inspector General, Economic
Offences Wing (EOW) Headquarters, Bhopal, bearing Complaint Inward
No. 01887/2025(1); it is pertinent that this complaint surfaced after, and not
before, the cancellation of the contractor's contract. On 06.08.2025, the Joint
Commissioner directed the Collector, Rewa to examine a complaint filed by
Shri Santosh Pandey the very same private contractor whose contract had
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/8/2026 5:00:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35649
3 WA-1077-2026
been cancelled by the appellant. On 25.08.2025, the Directorate of Technical
Education, by letter No. S-10/B/E.F. No. 734232/2025/403, appointed Dr.
A.K. Dohare, Professor (Electronics Engg.), Rewa Engineering College, and
Prof. G.R. Kumre, Professor (Electronics Engg.), Rewa Engineering College,
as Inquiry Officers to investigate the EOW complaint an order approved by
the Additional Director, Directorate of Technical Education (M.P.), acting
under the authority of the Commissioner, being a departmentally competent
authority. On 15.10.2025, the Additional Collector, Rewa constituted a three-
member committee comprising the SDM (Huzur), the Tehsildar (Huzur),
and an Assistant Accounts Officer to enquire into a complaint filed by
Respondent No. 4; the legal competence of the Collector to constitute such a
committee is a matter of serious challenge, addressed hereinafter. On
29.11.2025, the said three-member committee submitted its report; the
competence of this committee and the legal validity of its report are equally
disputed and fall for examination below. On 19.01.2026, the impugned order
was passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Technical Education,
transferring the charge of in-charge Principal from the appellant to
Respondent No. 4 without any show cause notice being issued to the
appellant by the Technical Education Department and without any
departmental proceedings being initiated against her. On 21.01.2026, the
appellant filed W.P. No. 2861/2026, whereupon two caveats were filed on
the very same day one by Respondent No. 4 and one by Shri Santosh
Pandey, the private contractor in near-identical terms, pointing to a common
design. On 16.03.2026, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/8/2026 5:00:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35649
4 WA-1077-2026
Judge. On 23.03.2026, Respondent No. 4 filed an RTI application in
response to which the enquiry report dated 29.11.2025 was made available
that is, after the impugned order and after the dismissal of the writ petition,
confirming that this report was not before the writ Court and could not have
been the basis for the impugned order. On 27.04.2026, the Collector, Rewa
forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Technical Education Department a
letter recommending initiation of disciplinary action against the appellant
under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1966 the very fact of such a recommendation, addressed to
the Technical Education Department, being itself an acknowledgment that
the disciplinary authority over the appellant vests in the Technical Education
Department and not in the Collector.
4. Upon the appellant filing W.P. No. 2861/2026 on 21.01.2026, two
caveats were filed on the very same day one by Respondent No. 4 and one
by Shri Santosh Pandey, the private contractor. A comparative reading of the
two caveats reveals that they are almost verbatim and appear to have been
drafted by the same person. The fact that Shri Santosh Pandey a private
contractor had knowledge of the impugned order and the filing of the writ
petition on the very day of institution, and filed a caveat in near-identical
terms as Respondent No. 4, is a circumstance of considerable significance
pointing to a common design.
5. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition primarily on
three grounds: first, that the allegation of malafide involved disputed
questions of fact which could not be examined; second, that there existed an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/8/2026 5:00:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35649
5 WA-1077-2026
enquiry report against the appellant and there was no document to show that
she had been exonerated; and third, that Respondent No. 4 was qualified to
hold the post of Principal and no adverse civil consequence would flow from
the transfer of in-charge charge. It is against these findings that the present
appeal is preferred.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. The learned Single Judge declined to examine the question of
malafide on the ground that it may involve disputed questions of fact. We are
unable to sustain this reasoning. The allegation of malafide, as pressed by the
appellant, rests not on disputed or contentious facts but on undisputed
documentary facts appearing on the face of the record:
(a) The appellant cancelled the contract of Shri Santosh Pandey (M/s
MP Security and Allied Services) on 25.06.2025. This is undisputed.
(b) Thereafter, and not before, the two complaints against the
appellant were filed one by the very contractor whose contract was
cancelled, and another by Respondent No. 4.
(c) Both caveators Respondent No. 4 and Shri Santosh Pandey are
direct beneficiaries of the appellant being removed from the post of in-
charge Principal. Respondent No. 4 gains the post; and the contractor
appears to have had his interests served by the new in-charge, as the fresh
tender process was cancelled upon Respondent No. 4 taking charge.
(d) The two caveats are near-identical in language a circumstance
inconsistent with their independent genesis, pointing unmistakably to
concerted action.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/8/2026 5:00:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35649
6 WA-1077-2026
7. None of these are disputed facts. They emerge from documents on
the record itself. Where malafide is apparent from undisputed documentary
facts particularly where the complainants are themselves the beneficiaries of
the action complained of the Court cannot shut its eyes to such a chain of
circumstances by simply labelling the matter as involving disputed facts. The
learned Single Judge's refusal to examine the malafide was, therefore, an
error of approach.
8. The learned Single Judge recorded a finding that there exists an
enquiry report against the appellant and that no document had been placed on
record showing her exoneration. With respect, this finding is not borne out
by the record before the writ Court. A scrutiny of the replies filed by the
State and Respondent No. 4 reveals that what was placed on record were
only:
(a) A letter dated 06.08.2025 from the Joint Commissioner to the
Collector requesting examination of the complaint of Shri Santosh Pandey.
(b) A letter dated 15.10.2025 from the Additional Collector
constituting a three-member committee to enquire into the complaint of
Respondent No. 4.
9. No enquiry report was placed on record along with the replies
before the writ Court. Critically, it is undisputed that the Technical Education
Department which is the parent department of the appellant had not issued
any show cause notice, nor initiated any departmental proceedings against
the appellant, prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 19.01.2026. It
is further noted that the 'enquiry report' dated 29.11.2025 (prepared by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/8/2026 5:00:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35649
7 WA-1077-2026
three-member committee consisting of the SDM Huzur, Tehsildar Huzur,
and an Assistant Accounts Officer) was received by the Collector and later
made available only through an RTI response obtained by Respondent No. 4
vide an RTI application dated 23.03.2026 which is after the impugned order
dated 19.01.2026 and after the dismissal of the writ petition on 16.03.2026.
This report, therefore, could not have been the basis for the impugned order
and was evidently not placed before the writ Court as part of the State's
reply. The finding of the learned Single Judge that there is an enquiry report
against the appellant and that she has not been exonerated is, therefore,
contrary to the record and cannot be sustained.
10. Even if the enquiry report dated 29.11.2025 were considered
(which, as held above, it cannot be, having been produced only after the
impugned order and after the dismissal of the writ petition), a fundamental
legal infirmity strikes at its very foundation: the committee was constituted
by the Additional Collector, Rewa, which authority had no power to
constitute any inquiry committee in relation to the service conditions of the
appellant or to investigate complaints against her as a teacher/Principal of a
Government Polytechnic College. This Court records its reasons for this
conclusion as follows:
(a) No statutory provision, no circular, no notification and no
delegation order has been brought on record by the respondents to establish
that the Collector exercises disciplinary control, supervisory jurisdiction, or
transfer/posting authority over the teaching staff or Principal of Government
Polytechnic Colleges under the Department of Technical Education, Madhya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/8/2026 5:00:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35649
8 WA-1077-2026
Pradesh.
(b) The impugned transfer/charge arrangement has admittedly been
made by the Department of Technical Education through the Deputy
Secretary which itself indicates that the competent administrative authority
vests in the Technical Education Department and not in the Collector or the
Revenue hierarchy.
(c) Under the scheme of the M.P. Technical Education Polytechnic
College (Teaching Cadre) Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, read with the
M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966,
disciplinary proceedings in respect of a teacher of a Government Polytechnic
College are required to be undertaken by the competent departmental
authority under the Technical Education Department. The Collector is not the
controlling authority, the appointing authority, or the disciplinary authority in
respect of such service matters.
(d) No statutory provision under the Janbhagidari Samiti framework
relied upon, impliedly, as the basis for constituting the committee empowers
the Collector to constitute an inquiry committee into the service conditions
or official conduct of teachers of Government Polytechnic Colleges. The
Janbhagidari Samiti scheme relates to community participation in
school/college management on administrative and infrastructural matters; it
does not vest the Collector with powers of a disciplinary authority in relation
to teachers governed by State service rules under the Technical Education
Department. The right to inquire into service-related matters of such teachers
vests exclusively with the Commissioner of Technical Education/the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/8/2026 5:00:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35649
9 WA-1077-2026
Technical Education Department.
(e) The Collector, by constituting an inquiry committee through the
Additional Collector's letter dated 15.10.2025, effectively bypassed the order
of the Deputy Secretary of Technical Education and arrogated to itself an
inquiry jurisdiction which it does not possess under any statutory provision.
A committee constituted without jurisdiction and without lawful authority
cannot generate a report that has any legal validity or evidentiary worth in
service law matters.
(f) The contrast with the inquiry ordered by the Technical Education
Department itself (letter dated 25.08.2025 appointing Inquiry Officers from
Rewa Engineering College under the authority of the Commissioner,
Directorate of Technical Education) is instructive. That inquiry was initiated
by the competent departmental authority. No finding of that departmentally-
appointed inquiry has been placed on record. What was instead relied upon
and what the learned Single Judge apparently considered was the report of
the committee constituted by the Collector, which is an authority without
jurisdiction over such service matters.
(g) It is further noted that the Collector's letter dated 27.04.2026
which came after the impugned order and after the dismissal of the writ
petition recommends initiation of disciplinary action under Rule 14 of the
M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966,
addressed to the Principal Secretary, Technical Education Department. This
very fact that the Collector could only 'recommend' disciplinary action to the
Technical Education Department is itself an acknowledgment that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/8/2026 5:00:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35649
10 WA-1077-2026
disciplinary power in respect of the appellant vests in the Technical
Education Department alone, and not in the Collector. If the Collector had
disciplinary jurisdiction, it would have initiated proceedings; instead, it
forwarded a recommendation. This conduct is entirely consistent with the
legal position that the Collector is not the competent authority.
11. The impugned order dated 19.01.2026 was thus passed by the
Deputy Secretary, Technical Education Department, evidently in reliance
upon a complaint and inquiry process conducted by an authority the
Revenue Collector which had no jurisdiction to investigate service-related
conduct of a Government Polytechnic College teacher. The impugned order
recites no independent application of mind by the Technical Education
Department, no show cause notice, and no departmental inquiry under the
applicable service rules. It is passed without hearing the appellant and
without following the principles of natural justice. Such an order, passed in
the shadow of a jurisdictionally incompetent inquiry, vitiated by malafide,
and in breach of the rules of seniority and natural justice, cannot be
sustained.
12. The learned Single Judge held that Respondent No. 4 is qualified
to hold the post of Principal of a Government Polytechnic College, without
analysing the material placed on record by the appellant in this regard. The
position in law and on record is as follows:
(a) As per Entry 67 of the Schedule to the MP Technical Education
Polytechnic College (Teaching Cadre) Service Recruitment Rules, 2004, the
qualification for the post of Principal (Technical) requires: (i) qualification as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/8/2026 5:00:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35649
11 WA-1077-2026
for the post of Head of Department along with a Ph.D. in
Engineering/Technology; and (ii) minimum of ten years' relevant
teaching/research/industry experience, out of which at least three years must
be at the level of Head of Department or equivalent.
(b) Respondent No. 4 is a Lecturer in Mathematics a non-
technical/science subject. The AICTE Notification dated 04.01.2016 (point
56) expressly clarifies that faculty from Humanities and Science subjects are
not eligible to be appointed as Principal. There is admittedly no sanctioned
post of Head of Department (Mathematics) in Government Polytechnic
College, Rewa, and accordingly Respondent No. 4 has neither held nor could
have held the post of HOD a mandatory experience requirement.
(c) Respondent No. 4 has placed reliance upon Rule 4.7 of the All
India Council for Technical Education Regulations on Pay Scales, Service
Conditions and Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and
Other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions and Measures for the
Maintenance of Standards in Technical Education (Diploma) Regulation,
2019, notified on 01.03.2019. The said provision, being relevant, is
reproduced hereinbelow:
"4.7 Qualifications for Principal
(Level — 13A1, Entry Pay Rs.1,31,400/- with the special allowance of
Rs.4,500/- per month)
(a) Direct Recruitment: minimum Ph.D. and First Class at either Bachelor's
or Master's level in the relevant discipline with post-Ph.D. years of
experience in Teaching/Research/Industry, out of which at least 3 years shall
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/8/2026 5:00:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35649
12 WA-1077-2026
be post-Ph.D. experience and 5 years of experience not below the level of
HoD. OR First Class at Bachelor's or Master's level in the relevant discipline
and minimum of 20 years of experience in Teaching/Research/Industry, out
of which 5 years of experience not below the level of HoD.
(b) For promotion of the Incumbent: Ph.D. and First Class at Bachelor's or
Master's level in the relevant discipline with minimum of 16 years of
experience in Teaching/Research/Industry, out of which 5 years shall be at
the level of HoD and 3 years shall be post-Ph.D. Experience; An average
360° feedback score of 5 to less than 8 out of 10 for last 5 years. OR First
Class at Bachelor's or Master's level in the relevant discipline; minimum of
20 years of experience in Teaching/Research/Industry, out of which 7 years
shall be not below the level of HoD; An average 360° feedback score of 8 to
10 out of 10 for last 5 years.
Note: Existing designations and pay scale of incumbent faculty, Head of the
Department and Principals shall be protected and may be placed in
appropriate cell in the level corresponding to their AGP drawn on
31.12.2015. Lecturer (Selection Grade-II) can be given charge of HoD on
rotation basis as per seniority for three years subject to availability of vacant
post."
Respondent No. 4 contends that the AICTE Diploma Regulation,
2019 does not require the Principal to hold a technical degree and that his
posting is a temporary arrangement in view of certain irregularities allegedly
committed by the appellant pending enquiry. This Court is unable to accept
either contention. A plain reading of Rule 4.7 under either pathway, whether
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/8/2026 5:00:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35649
13 WA-1077-2026
by direct recruitment or by promotion mandates, without exception, a
minimum of 5 years' experience not below the level of Head of Department.
In the case of Respondent No. 4, it is an admitted and undisputed position
that there exists no sanctioned post of Head of Department (Mathematics) at
Government Polytechnic College, Rewa. In the absence of a sanctioned HoD
post, Respondent No. 4 has neither held, nor could have held, the position of
HoD at any point in his service rendering the mandatory HoD experience
requirement under Rule 4.7 wholly unsatisfied. The Note appended to Rule
4.7 further provides that a Lecturer (Selection Grade-II) may be given charge
of HoD only on rotation basis as per seniority and subject to availability of a
vacant post reinforcing that the HoD experience prerequisite is a substantive,
non-waivable condition and not a mere formality. The contention that Rule
4.7 dispenses with the requirement of a technical degree is equally
misconceived: the regulation mandates qualification in the "relevant
discipline" which, for the post of Principal of a polytechnic college offering
predominantly technical programmes, necessarily means a technical
discipline, and not Mathematics. The AICTE Notification dated 04.01.2016
(point 56) explicitly so clarifies. Respondent No. 4's reliance on Rule 4.7 is,
therefore, of no avail; a careful reading of that very provision exposes, rather
than cures, his disqualification.
(d) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Public Service
Commission v. Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah (SLP (Civil) No.
27710/2025) has held that AICTE Regulations do not override the State
Rules. Accordingly, even if Rule 4.7 of the AICTE Diploma Regulation,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/8/2026 5:00:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35649
14 WA-1077-2026
2019 were construed in the manner urged by Respondent No. 4, it cannot
override Entry 67 of the MP Technical Education Polytechnic College
(Teaching Cadre) Service Recruitment Rules, 2004, which remains the
governing prescription.
(e) It is also pertinent that a relaxation granted by the State
Government permitting lecturers of non-technical subjects to be appointed as
Principal has been challenged in W.P. No. 19039/2022, wherein by an
interim order dated 16.09.2022 the said dilution was stayed, and rule nisi was
issued on 20.07.2023. The said interim order continues to operate.
(f) Clause 2.26 of the AICTE Regulations, 2019 itself provides that
where a college runs several programmes under technical education, the
Principal should be from the programme having the maximum student
strength which is not the Mathematics department.
13. In the face of this material which was placed before the writ
Court by the appellant a bald finding that Respondent No. 4 is qualified to
hold the post of Principal, without reference to or analysis of the said
material, cannot be sustained. The finding is perverse and deserves to be set
aside.
14. It is an admitted position that the appellant was appointed on
09.07.2009 and absorbed on 27.04.2018, whereas Respondent No. 4 was
appointed on 07.09.2009 and absorbed on 01.01.2025. The appellant is
indisputably senior to Respondent No. 4 both in terms of first appointment
date and absorption. The departmental practice, as reflected in the order
dated 06.07.2023 itself, is to assign the in-charge charge of Principal to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/8/2026 5:00:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35649
15 WA-1077-2026
senior-most lecturer. No deviation from this practice has been justified by
reference to any administrative exigency. On the contrary, the only 'reasons'
disclosed two complaints by interested persons do not constitute a valid
administrative justification, particularly when no departmental proceedings
or show cause notice were issued prior to the impugned order.
15. This Court notes one further telling circumstance. Respondent
No. 4 is the sole lecturer in Mathematics at Government Polytechnic College,
Rewa there being only one sanctioned post in that subject. His being posted
as in-charge Principal leaves the Mathematics classes unattended, whereas
the Civil Engineering department (the appellant's department) has multiple
lecturers and the academic work can be managed without disruption. This is
a relevant consideration showing that the impugned order is also
administratively unsound.
16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the impugned
order dated 19.01.2026 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
16.03.2026 are vitiated on the following counts:
(i) The impugned order was passed without any show cause notice or
departmental proceedings against the appellant by her parent department the
Technical Education Department.
(ii) The committee constituted by the Additional Collector vide letter
dated 15.10.2025 was constituted without jurisdiction, as the Collector is not
the competent authority over service matters of teaching staff of Government
Polytechnic Colleges under the Technical Education Department; the report
of such committee has no legal validity in service law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/8/2026 5:00:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35649
16 WA-1077-2026
(iii) The report dated 29.11.2025 of the Collector's committee was
not placed before the writ Court, it was made available to Respondent No. 4
only through an RTI response dated 23.03.2026 after the impugned order
and after the dismissal of the writ petition and could not have been the basis
for the impugned order.
(iv) The facts pertaining to malafide namely, that the complaints
were filed only after the cancellation of the contractor's contract, and that
both caveators are direct and identified beneficiaries of the action taken are
undisputed documentary facts which the learned Single Judge ought to have
examined, rather than declining to do so on the ground of disputed facts.
(v) Respondent No. 4 does not satisfy the qualifications prescribed
under the applicable Service Rules and AICTE notifications for the post of
Principal of a Government Polytechnic College, and his reliance on Rule 4.7
of the AICTE Diploma Regulation, 2019 is misplaced inasmuch as that
provision itself mandates 5 years' HoD experience a condition he cannot
satisfy in the absence of any sanctioned HoD post in his subject at this
college; the finding of the learned Single Judge to the contrary is perverse
and without reference to the material on record.
(vi) The appellant is senior to Respondent No. 4 and the established
departmental practice is to assign in-charge charge on the basis of seniority;
no valid justification for departure from this practice has been placed on
record.
(vii) The ground that no adverse civil consequences arise from the
impugned order is untenable when the order itself is vitiated by malafide,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/8/2026 5:00:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35649
17 WA-1077-2026
jurisdictional error, and non-application of mind.
17. In view of the foregoing, this writ appeal is allowed. The
judgment dated 16.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.
2861/2026 is set aside. The impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the
Deputy Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Skill Development
and Employment, Government of Madhya Pradesh, is hereby quashed. The
administrative charge of in-charge Principal of Government Polytechnic
College, Rewa shall stand restored to the appellant, Smt. Nisha Pandey, with
immediate effect. No order as to costs.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
JUDGE
praveen
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/8/2026 5:00:04 PM