Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Kshamasheel Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
1 W.P. No. 5927/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No. 5927 of 2024
DR. KSHAMASHEEL MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner through V.C.
Shri Harshvardhan Sharma - Advocate for the respondents
No. 3, 4 and 5.
Shri Kushagra Singh - Deputy Government Advocate for the
respondents State.
Shri Ramji Yadav - Respondent No.6 is present in person.
Reserved on :- 19.02.2026
Post on :- 26.03.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 26-03-2026
17:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
2 W.P. No. 5927/2024
The present petition is being filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Quo Warranto.
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the
appointment of Respondent No. 6 to the post of Lecturer in
Computer Science and Applications.The specific action under
challenge is the impugned appointment order dated 14.02.1996,
issued by Respondent No. 3 (University), whereby Respondent No.
6 was appointed against a post earmarked for the OBC (non-creamy
layer) category.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The respondent No.3 (University) issued an advertisement
dated 12.01.1995, inviting applications for various teaching posts.
This included two vacant posts of Lecturer in Computer Science
and Applications, with one post reserved for the OBC (non-creamy
layer) category of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
3. The advertisement prescribed the essential educational
qualification as a good academic record with at least 55% marks or
an equivalent grade at the Master’s degree level in the relevant
subject. Candidates were also required to have cleared the eligibility
test for Lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR, or a similar accredited
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 26-03-2026
17:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
3 W.P. No. 5927/2024
test.Exemptions from the eligibility test were strictly provided only
for candidates awarded an M.Phil. Degree up to 31.12.1993 or a
Ph.D. Degree up to 31.12.1993. Respondent No. 6 submitted his
application form on 19.03.1995 and was issued the impugned
appointment order on 14.02.1996.
4. Following complaints regarding this appointment, the
University issued a letter dated 08.06.1998, directing Respondent
No. 6 to clear the NET/SLET examination within a period of two
years. Subsequent enquiry committees concluded that the
appointment violated educational requirements and reservation
rules.
5. On 18.09.2012, the Executive Council of the University held
an emergency meeting and prima facie opined that Respondent No.
6 was illegally appointed. The Council subsequently resolved to
forward the entire matter to the Chancellor for appropriate orders.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER
6. The petitioner contends that Respondent No. 6 is ineligible
to hold the public post of Lecturer. It is submitted that on the last
date of submission of the application form (20.03.1995),
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 26-03-2026
17:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
4 W.P. No. 5927/2024
Respondent No. 6 merely held a B.Tech degree and was
prosecuting his Post Graduation, thereby lacking a Master’s degree
with 55% marks.
7. The petitioner further contends that Respondent No. 6 did not
possess a NET/SLET certificate, nor did he hold a Ph.D. or M.Phil.
degree. The petitioner asserts that despite being granted a two-year
extension by the University in 1998, Respondent No. 6 failed to
obtain the NET/SLET qualification.
8. To support the maintainability of the writ of Quo Warranto,
the petitioner places reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s
decision in State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sunder Das &
Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1382, asserting that the post of
Lecturer in the University is a sanctioned public post and the
incumbent lacks the essential qualifications laid down by the UGC
Regulations.
9. Additionally, the petitioner asserts that Respondent No. 6,
being a domicile of Uttar Pradesh, submitted a caste certificate that
did not specify non-creamy layer status. Relying on Anjan Kumar
v. Union of India & Others (2006) 3 SCC 257, the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 26-03-2026
17:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
5 W.P. No. 5927/2024
contends that obtaining an appointment against a reserved post
despite ineligibility amounts to a fraud upon the Constitution.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT(S)
10. Respondents No. 3, 4, and 5 (the University) primarily
contend that the petition suffers from an inordinate delay. The
University denies any collusion, asserting that it has conducted
thorough enquiries, issued show-cause notices, and already
forwarded the matter to the Chancellor, where it is pending final
decision.
11. Respondent No. 6 vehemently opposes the petition on
maintainability. He contends that a teacher of the University is
merely an ’employee’ under Section 4(xx) of the M.P.
Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, and not an ‘Authority’ or
‘Officer’ under Sections 11 and 19. Therefore, he argues, the post
does not involve sovereign functions and is not a “Public Office”.
12. To buttress this submission, Respondent No. 6 relies on the
Allahabad High Court decision in Dr Neetu Singh v. State Of U.P.
Thru Secretary Medical Health & Ors. (Misc. Bench No. 24229
of 2019), quoting verbatim:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 26-03-2026
17:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
6 W.P. No. 5927/2024
“17. From the aforesaid discussions it is evident that
the post of Professor of KGMU cannot be held to be
a „Public Office‟ merely because the University is
imparting education and is a Statutory Body enacted
under the Act of 2002. Office of Professor does not
seem to involve an obligation of any of the
sovereign functions of the government either
Executive or Legislative or Judicial for public
benefit.”
13. Respondent No. 6 further relies on University of Mysore v.
Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491, quoting:
“It is thus clear that before a citizen can claim a writ
of quo-warranto, he must satisfy the court, inter-alia,
that the office in question is a public office and is
held by usurper without legal authority…”
14. Furthermore, Respondent No. 6 pleads that the petition is
barred by the principles of res sub-judice, as he has independently
challenged the Executive Council’s resolution dated 18.09.2012 in a
pending writ petition (W.P. No. 11550/2012).
15. On merits, Respondent No. 6 asserts that the UGC had not
commenced NET examinations for Computer Science at the
relevant time, and the AICTE criteria of a first-class B.E./B.Tech
degree was applicable. He also contends that he had submitted a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 26-03-2026
17:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
7 W.P. No. 5927/2024
declaration of being a non-creamy layer candidate at the time of
scrutiny.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
16. Having heard the rival contentions and perused the pleadings, the
foremost issue that arises for the consideration of this Court is whether
the present writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto is maintainable.
The petitioner seeks to oust Respondent No. 6 from the post of Lecturer
(now Associate Professor) in the Respondent No. 3 University. The
petitioner alleges usurpation on grounds of inadequate educational
qualifications and an invalid OBC caste certificate. Conversely, the
respondents have raised a preliminary objection that the said post does
not constitute a “public office,” thereby rendering the petition defective
at the very threshold.
17. Since the petitioners have prayed for a writ of quo warranto, the
essentials for issuance of this writ needs to be adverted to at the outset.
The writ of quo warranto is a special kind of prerogative writs. The
Constitutional Courts may issue the writ of quo warranto to unseat and
oust the holder of public office or public post, when such holder is
found to have occupied and usurped such post even though the holder
does not fulfill the statutory eligibility criteria for the post and that he is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 26-03-2026
17:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
8 W.P. No. 5927/2024
unqualified to hold the post.
18. This court is of view that three ingredients are necessary to be
satisfied before a writ of quo warranto could be claimed.
i. The post or office held by the person against whom the writ is
sought for, is of the nature of public office.
ii. The appointment of the post must be found to contrary to
statutory provisions defining the eligibility of the post.
iii. The order is an usurper without legal authority and is unqualified
to man the post, which is a public office.
19. In the Indian context, the nature of office has to be one created
either by or under the Constitution, or by or under the Statute.The
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in The University of Mysore vs. C.D.
Govindarao [AIR 1965 SC 491] highlighted the nature of the writ,
stating:-
“Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial
enquiry in which any person holding an independent substantive
public office, or franchise, or liberty, is called upon to show by
what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty; if the
inquiry leads to the finding that the holder of the office has no valid
title to it, the issue of the writ of quo warranto ousts him front that
office.”
20. In Rajesh Awasti vs. Nandanlal Jaiswal [(2013) 1 SCC 501],
the Hon‟ble Apex Court underlined the ingredients, observing,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 26-03-2026
17:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
9 W.P. No. 5927/2024
19. A writ of quo warranto will lie when the appointment
is made contrary to the statutory provisions. This Court
in Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Govt. of
Haryana [(2002) 6 SCC 269] held that a writ of quo
warranto can be issued when appointment is contrary to
the statutory provisions. In B. Srinivasa Reddy [(2006) 11
SCC 731 (2) : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 548 (2)] , this Court
has reiterated the legal position that the jurisdiction of
the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is limited
to one which can only be issued if the appointment is
contrary to the statutory rules. The said position has been
reiterated by this Court in Hari Bansh Lal [(2010) 9 SCC
655 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 771] wherein this Court has
held that for the issuance of writ of quo warranto, the
High Court has to satisfy itself that the appointment is
contrary to the statutory rules.
21. In B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply &
Drainage Board Employees’ Assn., (2006) 11 SCC 731 (2) : 2006
SCC OnLine SC 887 at page 752 , Hon‟ble Apex Court Held:-
“43. Whether a writ of quo warranto lies to challenge an
appointment made “until further orders” on the ground
that it is not a regular appointment? Whether the High
Court failed to follow the settled law that a writ of quo
warranto cannot be issued unless there is a clear
violation of law? The order appointing the appellant
clearly stated that the appointment is until further orders.
The terms and conditions of appointment made it clear
that the appointment is temporary and is until further
orders. In such a situation, the High Court, in our view,
erred in law in issuing a writ of quo warranto the rightsSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 26-03-2026
17:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:831910 W.P. No. 5927/2024
under Article 226 which can be enforced only by an
aggrieved person except in the case where the writ
prayed for is for habeas corpus.
49. The law is well settled. The High Court in exercise of
its writ jurisdiction in a matter of this nature is required
to determine, at the outset, as to whether a case has been
made out for issuance of a writ of quo warranto. The
jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo
warranto is a limited one which can only be issued when
the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.
51. It is settled law by a catena of decisions that the court
cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the
Government in the choice of the person to be appointed
so long as the person chosen possesses the prescribed
qualification and is otherwise eligible for appointment.
This Court in R.K. Jain v. Union of India [(1993) 4 SCC
119 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1128 : (1993) 25 ATC 464] was
pleased to hold that the evaluation of the comparative
merits of the candidates would not be gone into a public
interest litigation and only in a proceeding initiated by an
aggrieved person, may it be open to be considered. It was
also held that in service jurisprudence it is settled law
that it is for the aggrieved person, that is, the non-
appointee to assail the legality or correctness of the
action and that a third party has no locus standi to
canvass the legality or correctness of the action. Further,
it was declared that public law declaration would only be
made at the behest of a public-spirited person coming
before the court as a petitioner. Having regard to the fact
that neither Respondents 1 and 2 were or could have been
candidates for the post of Managing Director of the
Board and the High Court could not have gone beyondSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 26-03-2026
17:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:831911 W.P. No. 5927/2024
the limits of quo warranto so very well delineated by a
catena of decisions of this Court and applied the test
which could not have been applied even in a certiorari
proceedings brought before the Court by an aggrieved
party who was a candidate for the post.
55. It is useful to refer to University of Mysore v. C.D.
Govinda Rao [(1964) 4 SCR 575 : AIR 1965 SC 491] ,
SCR at pp. 580-81:
“As Halsbury has observed [ Halsbury’s Laws of
England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 11, p. 145.] :
„An information in the nature of a quo warranto took the
place of the obsolete writ of quo warranto which lay
against a person who claimed or usurped an office,
franchise, or liberty, to inquire by what authority he
supported his claim, in order that the right to the office or
franchise might be determined.‟
Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a
judicial remedy by which any person, who holds an
independent substantive public office or franchise or
liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the
said office, franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may
be duly determined, and in case the finding is that the
holder of the office has no title, he would be ousted from
that office by judicial order. In other words, the
procedure of quo warranto gives the judiciary a weapon
to control the executive from making appointments to
public office against law and to protect a citizen from
being deprived of public office to which he has a right.
These proceedings also tend to protect the public from
usurpers of public office, who might be allowed to
continue either with the connivance of the executive or bySignature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 26-03-2026
17:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:831912 W.P. No. 5927/2024
reason of its apathy. It will, thus, be seen that before a
person can effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he
has to satisfy the court that the office in question is a
public office and is held by a usurper without legal
authority, and that inevitably would lead to the enquiry as
to whether the appointment of the alleged usurper has
been made in accordance with law or not.”
56. It is also beneficial to refer to the decision of this
Court in Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal [(2002) 1
SCC 33] , SCC p. 54, para 38 which reads thus:
“38. There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition
that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except
in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus
or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is
the filing of a writ petition in public interest. The
existence of the legal right of the petitioner which is
alleged to have been violated is the foundation for
invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under the
aforesaid article. The orthodox rule of interpretation
regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the court
has undergone a sea change with the development of
constitutional law in our country and the constitutional
courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing
with the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely
on hypertechnical grounds. If a person approaching the
court can satisfy that the impugned action is likely to
adversely affect his right which is shown to be having
source in some statutory provision, the petition filed by
such a person cannot be rejected on the ground of his not
having the locus standi. In other words, if the person is
found to be not merely a stranger having no rightSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 26-03-2026
17:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:831913 W.P. No. 5927/2024
whatsoever to any post or property, he cannot be non-
suited on the ground of his not having the locus standi.”
57. It is settled law that a writ of quo warranto does not
lie if the alleged violation is not of a statutory nature.
Three judgments relied on by Mr P.P. Rao can be usefully
referred to in the present context.
58. In A. Ramachandran v. A. Alagiriswami [AIR 1961
Mad 450 : ILR 1961 Mad 553] the Court observed in
paras 74 and 104 as under: (AIR pp. 465 & 472)
“Where an authority has power to make rules relating to
a subject-matter and also the power to decide disputes
arising in the field occupied by that subject-matter, the
two powers and functions must be kept distinct and
separate. This dispute must be decided with reference to
the rules in force at the time the adjudication had to be
made and, the rule-making power cannot be invoked in
relation to that adjudication.
***
It was also contended that it was incumbent on the State
Government to follow the principle of appointment as laid
down in 1932 G.O. so as to avoid arbitrariness of
nepotism. Reliance was placed upon the decision in K.
Nagarathnammal v. S. Ibrahim Saheb [ (1955) 2 Mad LJ
49 : AIR 1955 Mad 305 (FB)] for the position that even
non-statutory regulations and rules contained in the
Board’s Standing Orders are binding on the State
Government, and that it cannot depart from such rules
arbitrarily and capriciously to suit the exigencies of a
particular situation. In that case the Government
purported to exercise a revisional power over the orders
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 26-03-2026
17:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
14 W.P. No. 5927/2024
of the Board of Revenue which it did not have as per
Board’s Standing Orders. The exercise of that power by
the Government was sought to be justified on the ground
that the executive instructions contained in the Board’s
Standing Orders could at any time be modified or
amended and that if the Government had power to bring
about such modifications it followed that the Government
had power of revision though in terms such power was
not conferred upon it.”
22. Recently, in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs. State of Gujarat
[(2022) 5 SCC 179], the Apex Court explained the meaning and
purpose of the writ, observing :-
“17. In Armed Forces Medical Assn. v. Union of
India [Armed Forces Medical Assn. v. Union of India,
(2006) 11 SCC 731 (1) : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 548 (1)] , it
has been observed by this Court that strict rules of locus
standi are relaxed to some extent in a quo warranto
proceedings. It is further observed in the said decision
that broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords
a judicial remedy by which any person, who holds an
independent substantive public office or franchise or
liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the
said office, franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may
be duly determined, and in case the finding is that the
holder of the office has no title, he would be ousted from
that office by a judicial order. It is further observed that
in other words, the procedure of quo warranto gives the
judiciary a weapon to control the executive from making
appointments to public office against law and to protect
citizens from being deprived of public office to which they
have a right. These proceedings also tend to protect the
public from usurpers of public office. It is furtherSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 26-03-2026
17:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:831915 W.P. No. 5927/2024
observed that it will, thus, be seen that before a person
can effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he has to
satisfy the Court that the office in question is a public
office and is held by a usurper without legal authority,
and that inevitably would lead to an enquiry, as to,
whether, the appointment of the alleged usurper has been
made in accordance with law or not.
18. Thus, as per the law laid down in a catena of decisions, the
jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a
limited one, which can only be issued when a person is holding the
public office does not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed to be
appointed to such an office or when the appointment is contrary to
the statutory rules. Keeping in mind the law laid down by this
Court in the aforesaid decisions on the jurisdiction of the Court
while issuing a writ of quo warranto, the factual and legal
controversy in the present petition is required to be considered.”
23. Applying these settled principles to the facts at hand, the concept
of a public office presupposes a post which has clear public trappings. It
must be an office where the incumbent is associated with duties of a
public nature. The functional realm of the holder of the office should
travel into the public domain. In the present case, Respondent No. 6
was appointed as a Lecturer in Computer Science and Application, and
currently holds the post of Associate Professor in the Respondent No. 3
University.
24. An Associate Professor or Professor, as Respondent No. 6 is, may
be a part of the academic faculty, but for all functional and legal
purposes, he is merely an employee of the University. As noted in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 26-03-2026
17:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
16 W.P. No. 5927/2024
pleadings relying upon the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya
Adhiniyam, 1973, teachers are not defined as ‘Officers’ or ‘Authorities’
under Sections 11 and 19 of the Act. The lecturers or associate
professors bear a jural relationship with the University, and that
relationship is strictly one of employee and employer.
25. Furthermore, as held in University of Mysore (supra) regarding
Professors or Readers in a University, there is no provision enumerating
teachers as statutory functionaries in the same way as the Chancellor,
Vice-Chancellor, or Registrar. An Associate Professor or Professor has
no sovereign or public function to discharge. They do not interact
publicly in their duties, nor do they discharge duties in the public
domain affecting the legal rights of the citizenry at large. Professors,
readers, or teachers cannot be grouped to treat them in the category of
holders of a public office.
26. By no stretch of imagination, given the very nature of their post
and the work and duties attached, can teaching faculty become holders
of a public office. For all the above considerations, the post of
Associate Professor held by Respondent No. 6 is not a public office.
The sine qua non for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto is thus not
satisfied in the present case. In this view, as no relief can be granted on
this preliminary score alone, the need does not arise to go into any other
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 26-03-2026
17:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8319
17 W.P. No. 5927/2024
aspect of merit regarding the petitioner’s specific claims of educational
or domicile disqualification.
27. The Court therefore has not gone into any other question of merit.
The present writ petition fails on the very threshold of maintainability,
as the post under challenge does not constitute a public office.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, shall be disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
rashmi*PS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 26-03-2026
17:29:21
