Chaturbhuj Ahirwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 12 and 226 - Statute 30 - Clause 33 - Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sansthan (Anudan Ka Pradaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 - Section 6(a)(iii) - Termination of services of teachers in a government-aided institution - Closure of self-financed courses - Where the closure of self-financed courses is decided by the competent authority on valid academic and financial grounds, the posts attached thereto cease to exist - In the absence of a continuing post, no vested right to continue in service survives - Such discontinuation is an administrative policy decision and not a punitive termination; therefore, no prior show-cause notice or inquiry is required. (Paras 26, 27, 28, 29)

(B) Service Law - Abolition of post vs. Closure of course - The requirement of prior approval of the Executive Council under Clause 33(1)(v) of Statute 30 arises in cases of abolition of posts within a continuing department; it does not apply when the course itself is closed due to financial non-viability and poor intake. (Para 27)

(C) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of interference - Courts exercising writ jurisdiction do not sit in appeal over policy or administrative decisions taken by competent authorities and shall not substitute their opinion for that of the authority unless the decision is arbitrary, mala fide, or contrary to law. (Para 31)

Facts of the case:
Two lecturers appointed to self-financed courses in a government-aided polytechnic college had their services discontinued after the Board of Governors decided to close the respective courses due to sustained poor admissions and heavy financial losses. The petitioners challenged the orders, contending that the institution is a "State" under Article 12, that the termination violated the mandatory procedure for the abolition of posts under statutory rules, and that the principles of natural justice were ignored as no show-cause notice was provided.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the courses were self-financed and closed based on a conscious policy decision supported by material regarding academic and financial non-viability. The termination was non-punitive and did not attribute any misconduct to the petitioners. Consequently, the failure to provide a show-cause notice or obtain prior approval for the abolition of posts did not render the orders illegal.

Issues: Whether the termination of lecturers due to the closure of self-financed courses on academic and financial grounds, without following the procedure for abolition of posts or providing a show-cause notice, is arbitrary and illegal under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: When a self-financed course is closed by a competent authority on valid academic and financial grounds, the associated posts cease to exist. Such an action is an administrative policy decision rather than a punitive measure; thus, it does not warrant the application of principles of natural justice (like show-cause notices) or the specific statutory approvals required for the abolition of posts in continuing departments.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Termination of services of lecturers following closure of self-financed courses in an aided polytechnic institution — challenge under Article 226. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )

2. Petitioners alleged violation of statutory rules and natural justice; respondents justified termination due to course closure with notice pay as per Statute 30. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )

3. Writ petition dismissed; no illegality or violation of rights found in termination following course closure with notice pay. (Para 32 , 33 )

4. What is the legal effect of closure of a self-financed course on the service of a lecturer appointed under a general recruitment?

The posts attached to the closed course cease to exist, and termination of service with notice pay as per Statute 30 is permissible without prior approval of the Executive Council. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 )

5. Is a show-cause notice or hearing required before terminating services due to course closure?

No, because the termination is non-punitive and consequential to a valid administrative decision to close the course; no misconduct is alleged. (Para 28 )

6. Can a court under Article 226 interfere with an academic or administrative decision to close a course?

No, unless the decision is arbitrary, mala fide, or contrary to law; courts do not sit in appeal over policy decisions. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )

7. Is a self-financed course closure subject to the same procedural requirements as abolition of a post in a continuing department?

No; abolition of a post in a continuing department requires prior approval of the Executive Council under Clause 33(1)(v), whereas course closure resulting in cessation of posts does not require such approval. (Para 27 )

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, Chaturbhuj Ahirwar and Prakash Kumar Maravi seeking following reliefs :

a) Allow the present petition and to set aside the orders dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure P/1 and P/2) passed by the respondent no.04.

b) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be given to the petitioner along with costs.

2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, had applied for the post of Lecturer pursuant to Recruitment Notification No. Estt./Recruitment/2007/2126, dated 09.02.2007 issued by respondent No.4. Upon due selection, he was appointed to the post of Lecturer (Electronics and Telecommunication) under the SC category at S.A.T.I. Polytechnic College, Vidisha, vide order dated 13.10.2007 and had joined his duties on 05.10.2007. Since then, he has been continuously serving on the said post without any adverse remark.

3. The petitioner No.2, who belongs to the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category, had also applied pursuant to the same recruitment notification and was duly selected and appointed to the post of Lecturer (Information Technology) under the ST category at S.A.T.I. Polytechnic College, Vidisha, vide order dated 03.10.2007. He had joined his duties on 10.10.2007 and has been continuously serving since then.

4. Vide Office Order dated 30.08.2022, the intake of the Information Technology course was merged with the Computer Science and Engineering course with effect from the academic session 2020–21.

5. Respondent No.4 had issued Recruitment Notification No. Estt./Recruitment/2007/2126 dated 09.02.2007 for appointment of Lecturers in various departments including Electronics and Telecommunication and Information Technology, pursuant to which the petitioners applied, were selected, and were appointed vide appointment orders dated 03.10.2007. On 16.07.2024, respondent No.04 had passed impugned orders discontinuing the services of the petitioners. The services of petitioner No.1 were discontinued on the ground that the Electronics and Telecommunication course is a self-financed course for which no grant-in-aid was being received from the State Government and due to poor admissions for the last ten years and heavy financial losses, the Board of Governors of the institute, vide resolution dated 09.07.2024, decided to close the said course with immediate effect from the academic year 2024–2025. On the said basis, the services of petitioner No.01 were discontinued with immediate effect. Similarly, the services of petitioner No.2 were discontinued on the ground that the Information Technology course is a self-financed course for which no grant- in-aid was being received from the State Government and due to poor admissions, the I.T. branch had already been closed in the academic year 2021–22. It was further held that owing to heavy losses, the Board of Governors, vide resolution dated 09.07.2024, decided to discontinue his services with immediate effect. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary, illegal, and mala fide action of the respondents in discontinuing the services of the petitioners without following due process of law, they have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

6. 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 the due procedure prescribed under the applicable statutory provisions and service rules governing respondent No.4.

7. It was further submitted that the impugned orders have been passed without adhering to the mandatory procedure and rules applicable to respondent No.04, which is a government-aided institution as no notice, inquiry, or approval from the competent authority was ob

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 746

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J.

Chaturbhuj Ahirwar And Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 21982 of 2024
Decided On : 05-01-2026

Termination of employees due to the closure of self-financed courses on valid financial and academic grounds is non-punitive. Such administrative decisions do not require show-cause notices or inquiries, as the closure of the course results in the cessation of the associated post.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the legal effect of closure of a self-financed course on the service of a lecturer appointed under a general recruitment?

5. Is a show-cause notice or hearing required before terminating services due to course closure?

6. Can a court under Article 226 interfere with an academic or administrative decision to close a course?

7. Is a self-financed course closure subject to the same procedural requirements as abolition of a post in a continuing department?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 746

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIORMILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J. Chaturbhuj Ahirwar And Others – Petitioners Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – RespondentsWrit Petition No. 21982 of 2024Decided On : 05-01-2026

Termination of employees due to the closure of self-financed courses on valid financial and academic grounds is non-punitive. Such administrative decisions do not require show-cause notices or inquiries, as the closure of the course results in the cessation of the associated post.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the legal effect of closure of a self-financed course on the service of a lecturer appointed under a general recruitment?

5. Is a show-cause notice or hearing required before terminating services due to course closure?

6. Can a court under Article 226 interfere with an academic or administrative decision to close a course?

7. Is a self-financed course closure subject to the same procedural requirements as abolition of a post in a continuing department?

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J.

Chaturbhuj Ahirwar And Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 21982 of 2024
Decided On : 05-01-2026