MP HC Upholds Guest Singing Teacher’s Removal, Citing Complaints, Her Show-Cause Reply And A Regular Teacher’s Appointment

In brief

The question

Whether discontinuing the petitioner’s temporary Guest Faculty engagement was illegal or arbitrary, including for alleged denial of an opportunity to be heard.

The court held

The Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit, finding no basis to grant the requested writs or other relief.

It also directed

No order as to costs was made.

01Facts

The petitioner was engaged as Guest Faculty (Singing) at Government Music College, Maihar, on a temporary basis.

¶ 2

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed that existing Guest Faculty could continue until regular appointments were made; the petitioner was subsequently re-engaged for the 2024–25 academic session.

¶ 2

After complaints concerning her conduct, the respondents issued her a show-cause notice on 24 February 2025, received her reply, and discontinued her services by order dated 8 April 2025 under Clause 5.11 of the Culture Department policy dated 3 June 2024.

¶ 4, 6

A regularly appointed Assistant Lecturer in Singing had joined the college on 7 April 2025.

¶ 4, 7

The petitioner challenged the discontinuance, alleging denial of a hearing and breach of the earlier court order; she also sought consideration of her representation dated 1 May 2025.

¶ 1–3

02Issues

i.Whether discontinuing the petitioner’s temporary Guest Faculty engagement was illegal or arbitrary, including for alleged denial of an opportunity to be heard.

¶ 3, 6, 8

ii.Whether discontinuance after a regular appointment breached the earlier direction permitting existing Guest Faculty to continue until regular appointments were made.

¶ 3, 7–8

iii.Whether the petitioner was entitled to the writs and other reliefs sought, including consideration of her representation.

¶ 1, 8–9

03Law Applied

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may grant relief where the impugned action is unlawful or arbitrary.

¶ 8

A temporary Guest Faculty engagement does not, by itself, confer a right to continue after a regular appointment is made; a direction permitting existing Guest Faculty to continue until regular appointments are made operates only until that condition is fulfilled.

¶ 7

The Court also noted that Clause 5.11 of the policy dated 3 June 2024 was the basis stated for discontinuance following consideration of the petitioner’s reply and the Principal’s recommendation.

¶ 6

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioner had received a show-cause notice and submitted a reply, which was considered along with the Principal’s recommendation before her services were discontinued under Clause 5.11.

¶ 6

It further held that the regular appointee’s joining on 7 April 2025 fulfilled the condition in the earlier order allowing Guest Faculty to continue until regular appointments were made; the petitioner’s temporary engagement therefore gave her no right to remain in the post thereafter.

¶ 7

On that basis, the Court found no illegality, arbitrariness, or breach of the earlier direction warranting intervention under Article 226.

¶ 8