Sanjeev Kumar Parashar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 12, 21 and 226 - Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sansthan (Anudan Ka Pradaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 - Section 6(a)(iii) - Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya (College Code Statute), 2007 - Statute 30, Clause 33 - Termination of services following closure of self-financed course - Writ jurisdiction is maintainable where statutory provisions govern service conditions or public duties are discharged (Para 22) - Closure of a self-financed course due to poor student intake and financial losses is a valid administrative policy decision - When a course is closed, the posts attached to it cease to exist, and no vested or indefeasible right to continue in service survives (Para 25).

(B) Service Law - Termination of confirmed employees - Non-punitive termination - Where termination is a consequence of a policy and administrative decision taken for academic and financial viability and does not attribute misconduct or stigma, no prior show-cause notice or departmental enquiry is required (Para 26).

(C) Judicial Review - Scope of Article 226 - Courts exercising writ jurisdiction do not sit in appeal over policy or administrative decisions and cannot examine the wisdom or desirability thereof unless the action is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of law (Para 29).

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were employed in a government-aided technical institution and were promoted to roles in the Information Technology department. The institution's Board of Governors decided to close the Information Technology course, as it was a self-financed programme experiencing poor admissions and financial losses. Consequently, the services of the petitioners were discontinued. The petitioners challenged this action as arbitrary and illegal, arguing that the institution failed to follow statutory procedures, obtain prior approval for the abolition of posts, or provide an opportunity for a hearing.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the decision to close the course was a reasoned policy decision taken by the competent authority. Since the course was self-financed and no longer viable, the positions attached to it were extinguished. The termination was determined to be non-punitive in nature; therefore, the requirements for a departmental inquiry or a show-cause notice were not applicable. The court held that the action was consistent with the applicable college code statute.

Issues: Whether the discontinuation of services resulting from the closure of a self-financed course in a government-aided institution is arbitrary or illegal due to the lack of a show-cause notice and prior approval for the abolition of posts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the closure of a self-financed course based on academic and financial considerations leads to the cessation of the posts attached thereto. Such termination is non-punitive and does not necessitate a prior hearing or inquiry. Furthermore, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to substitute judicial opinion for a a good-faith administrative decision concerning institutional autonomy in academic and financial administration.

Result: The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Permanent employees of a government-aided polytechnic challenged termination following closure of a self-financed course; service conditions were governed by the 1978 Act and Statute 30. (Para 2 )

2. Petitioners asserted writ maintainability and challenged termination for violating statutory procedure, natural justice and prior approval; respondents justified closure as valid policy under Statute 30. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )

3. Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs; no interference under Article 226 because termination was a lawful non-punitive consequence of course closure. (Para 30 , 31 )

4. Is a writ petition maintainable against a government-aided educational institution not strictly falling within Article 12 of the Constitution?

A writ lies where statutory provisions govern the employee's service conditions or where the institution discharges public duties; amenability under Article 226 is not foreclosed merely because the institution may not strictly fall within Article 12. (Para 22 )

5. What procedure is required for terminating the services of a confirmed teacher under Statute 30?

Under Clause 33, a confirmed teacher may be terminated on specified grounds or by giving three months' notice or salary in lieu, except in misconduct cases; a non-punitive termination requires no prior show-cause notice or departmental inquiry. (Para 23 , 26 )

6. Does closure of a self-financed course extinguish attached posts and require Executive Council approval for termination?

Once the course itself is closed, attached posts cease to exist and no vested or indefeasible right to continue survives; prior approval under Clause 33(1)(v) is required only when posts are abolished in an otherwise continuing department, not when the course is closed. (Para 24 , 25 )

7. What is the scope of judicial review of a decision to close a self-financed technical course?

Courts do not sit in appeal over policy or administrative decisions and cannot examine their wisdom unless the action is arbitrary, mala fide, or illegal; a reasoned closure based on record and in good faith warrants no interference under Article 226. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 )

ORDER :

MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners No.1 and 2, namely, Sanjeev Kumar Parashar and Rajesh Mathur seeking following reliefs:

a) Allow the present writ petition and to quash the termination letters issued by the respondent no.4

b) Direct the respondent to allow the Petitioner no.1 and Petitioner no. 2 on the current posts.

c) Grant any other relief as this Hon’ble Court deem fit in the present facts and circumstance of the case.

2. Short facts of the case are that the Respondent No.4 is a Government-aided Polytechnic College governed by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sansthan (Anudan Ka Pradaya) Adhiniyam, 1978, with its courses duly approved by the All India Council for Technical Education and affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal, and is therefore amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this. Petitioner No.1 was initially appointed on the post of Lab Technician (Computer) on a probationary basis under a Government-aided programme vide appointment order dated 26.10.1996 issued by Respondent No.4. Upon satisfactory completion of the probation period, his services were made permanent with effect from 28.10.1997 vide order dated 01.02.1998. Thereafter, on the recommendation of the Promotion/Selection Committee, Petitioner No.1 was internally transferred with promotion to the post of Programmer in the Information Technology Department vide order dated 04.09.2008 with effect from 08.09.2008, and he continued to discharge his duties diligently without any adverse remark. Petitioner No.2 was also appointed on the post of Lab Technician (Computer) on a probationary basis under a Government-aided programme vide appointment order dated 26.10.1996 issued by Respondent No.4. Upon satisfactory completion of the probation period, his services were made permanent with effect from 28.10.1997 vide order dated 01.02.1998. Thereafter, on the recommendation of the Promotion/Selection Committee, Petitioner No.2 was internally transferred with promotion to the post of System Manager in the Information Technology Department vide order dated 04.09.2008 with effect from 08.09.2008. In addition to his regular duties, Petitioner No.2 was also discharging teaching assignments and had been entrusted with the additional charge of Hostel Warden since 01.06.2015. Pursuant to the approval accorded by the Board of Governors of the respondent/institution, Respondent No.4 vide order dated 30.08.2022 directed the merger of intake of the existing Information Technology course with Computer Science and Engineering from the academic session 2020– 21, while expressly stipulating that the terms and conditions of appointment of the existing staff would remain unchanged and would continue to be governed by their original appointment orders. Thereafter, in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Board of Governors in its meeting dated 09.07.2024, Respondent No.4 issued the impugned orders dated 16.07.2024 discontinuing the services of both the petitioners with immediate effect. The impugned orders dated 16.07.2024 have been passed on the purported ground that the Information Technology course was a self-financed course not receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government and that, due to poor admissions and alleged financial losses, the said course was closed pursuant to the resolution of the Board of Governors dated 09.07.2024. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary, illegal, and mala fide action of Respondent No.4 in discontinuing their services despite their long, continuous, and unblemished service, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the impugned orders dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure P/1 and Annexure P/2) were per se illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the rule of law, as they have been passed mechanically without following

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 745

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J.
Sanjeev Kumar Parashar And Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 21986 of 2024
Decided On : 05-01-2026

Termination of employees resulting from the closure of a self-financed course due to lack of academic or financial viability is non-punitive. Such actions do not require a show-cause notice or inquiry, as the corresponding posts cease to exist upon the course's closure.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Is a writ petition maintainable against a government-aided educational institution not strictly falling within Article 12 of the Constitution?

5. What procedure is required for terminating the services of a confirmed teacher under Statute 30?

6. Does closure of a self-financed course extinguish attached posts and require Executive Council approval for termination?

7. What is the scope of judicial review of a decision to close a self-financed technical course?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 745

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIORMILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J.Sanjeev Kumar Parashar And Others – Petitioners Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – RespondentsWrit Petition No. 21986 of 2024 Decided On : 05-01-2026

Termination of employees resulting from the closure of a self-financed course due to lack of academic or financial viability is non-punitive. Such actions do not require a show-cause notice or inquiry, as the corresponding posts cease to exist upon the course's closure.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Is a writ petition maintainable against a government-aided educational institution not strictly falling within Article 12 of the Constitution?

5. What procedure is required for terminating the services of a confirmed teacher under Statute 30?

6. Does closure of a self-financed course extinguish attached posts and require Executive Council approval for termination?

7. What is the scope of judicial review of a decision to close a self-financed technical course?

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J.
Sanjeev Kumar Parashar And Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 21986 of 2024
Decided On : 05-01-2026