IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

ON THE 7^th OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 31874 of 2023

DR VIJAY KUMAR KUSHWAH

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri D.P.Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Dharmendra Nayak - Govt. Advocate for the

respondents/State.

ORDER months for academic Sessions 2022-2023. The petitioner has also contended that he was served with a show cause notice, dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure P/5) to which he submitted reply. However, without appreciating the reply, the respondent no.4 passed impugned order thereby discharging him from the work of guest faculty. The present writ petition has therefore, been filed challenging the order, dated 23.11.2023.

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 23.11.2023, (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no.4 whereby he has been discharged from the work of guest faculty in the College. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to allow him to

continue to work as guest faculty in the college.

[2]. The petitioner has contended that he was working as guest

faculty in Shrimant Madhav Rao Scindhia Govt. Adarsh Vigyan Mahavidyalaya, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as ‘College’) since 2003. It is his submission that vide order, dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P/4) his engagement as guest faculty in the college was extended for 12

[3]. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.4 discharged the petitioner without following the procedure prescribed for the purpose. It is his submission that in the reply, the petitioner has assured that he will cover up the loss of study of students by taking extra classes. However, without appreciating the same, the impugned order is passed. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner was not a regular employee and, therefore, conduct rules are not applicable on him. There is no restriction on his participating in elections. The learned counsel also submitted that as per the instructions issued by Govt., the respondent no.4 could not have discharged the petitioner without first issuing a warning. He thus prayed for setting aside of impugned order and a direction to the respondents to permit petitioner to work as guest faculty.

[4]. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents refuted the submissions made by petitioner’s counsel. He submitted that the conduct rules are applicable on the petitioner and, therefore, his participating in election without intimation and permission of the College amounts to misconduct. The learned counsel submitted that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in response of which he admitted his absence from the College without intimation. As per his submission, the principles of natural justice were duly followed and, therefore, impugned order passed by respondent no.4 is justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court. He also argued that the petitioner’s engagement as guest faculty was only for 12 months which period is already over. Therefore, a direction for his reinstatement cannot be issued. He thus prayed for dismissal of petition.

[5]. Considered the arguments and perused the records.

[6]. The petitioner has filed various instructions issued by Higher Education Department of State Govt. which governs the engagement of guest faculty members. The instructions issued on 05.10.2023 superseded all previous instructions. Further, the impugned order has been passed after coming into force of these instructions. It is, therefore, held that the action taken against the petitioner is governed by instructions issued vide circular, dated 05.10.2023.

[7]. It is alleged against the petitioner that he remained absent from work for more than 15 days in the month of October’ 2023 and continuously remained absent in November’ 2023. The absence of the petitioner is stated to be because of his conte