Administrative Charge Based on Seniority Cannot Be Diverted Using Jurisdictionally Corrupt Inquiry and Disqualified Substitutes

The appellant, Smt. Nisha Pandey, a senior lecturer at Government Polytechnic College, Rewa, was handed the administrative charge of in-charge Principal on 06.07.2023.

On 25.06.2025, she cancelled the contract of a private cleaning agency, M/s MP Security, for financial irregularities. Subsequently, complaints were filed against her by the contractor and the fourth respondent (Dr. Rishikesh Tripathi).

On 19.01.2026, the Department of Technical Education transferred the in-charge Principal ship from the appellant to the fourth respondent, a lecturer in Mathematics, purportedly based on an inquiry initiated by the Revenue Collector.

The appellant’s writ petition (W.P. No. 2861/2026) was dismissed by a Single Judge on 16.03.2026. The appellant challenged this dismissal via the present writ appeal.

1. Whether the impugned order was vitiated by malafides and concerted action between the private contractor and the fourth respondent.

2. Whether the Revenue Collector possessed the legal competence to constitute an inquiry committee regarding the service conduct of a teacher under the Technical Education Department.

3. Whether the fourth respondent, a lecturer in a non-technical subject (Mathematics), met the statutory qualifications and experience required to hold the post of Principal.

M.P. Technical Education Polytechnic College (Teaching Cadre) Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, specifically Entry 67, which mandates technical qualifications and a minimum of five years' experience as a Head of Department (HoD) for the post of Principal.

M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the parent department over disciplinary matters.

AICTE Regulations (2016 and 2019), which specify that faculty from non-technical disciplines are ineligible for the post of Principal.

Supreme Court’s ruling in Gujarat Public Service Commission v. Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah that AICTE regulations do not override State Rules.

The court found the Single Judge erred in dismissing malafide claims as "disputed facts," noting that the cancellation of the contract preceded the complaints and that both the contractor and the fourth respondent filed near-identical caveats on the same day, indicating a common design.

Regarding jurisdiction, the court held that the Collector is not the "appointing" or "disciplinary" authority for Polytechnic staff; thus, the inquiry committee constituted by the Additional Collector was coram non judice and its report legally void.

On qualifications, the court observed that the fourth respondent lacked the mandatory 5 years of HoD experience because no HoD post exists for Mathematics at the college.

Finally, the court noted that the appellant was significantly senior to the fourth respondent in both appointment and absorption, and the departure from the seniority-based practice of assigning in-charge roles was unjustified and administratively unsound.

The court allowed the writ appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s judgment dated 16.03.2026, and quashed the impugned order dated 19.01.2026. The court ordered the immediate restoration of the administrative charge of in-charge Principal to Smt. Nisha Pandey.