Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4357

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Jai Kumar Pillai, J
Kshamasheel Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
W.P. No. 5927/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: L. C. Patne
For the Respondents: Harshvardhan Sharma, Kushagra Singh, Ramji Yadav

A writ of quo warranto cannot be issued against a university teaching position because such roles are employment-based and lack the sovereign or delegated governmental characteristics required to satisfy the definition of a public office.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Quo Warranto - Maintainability - Essential ingredients include the post being a public office, appointment being contrary to statutory provisions, and the occupant being a usurper without legal authority - Writ of quo warranto acts as a judicial remedy to challenge an appointment to an independent substantive public office. (Paras 17, 18, 21)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Public Office - Nature of appointment - An office must involve sovereign, executive, legislative, or judicial functions related to public benefit to qualify as a public office - Teaching personnel in an academic institution, though engaged in public education, function within an employer-employee relationship and do not discharge sovereign functions - Consequently, such posts do not constitute a public office for the purpose of invoking quo warranto jurisdiction. (Paras 23, 24, 25, 26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner approached the court seeking a writ of quo warranto to remove an incumbent from a teaching position, alleging that the appointment was made without the required educational qualifications and valid eligibility certificates. The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable, asserting that the post does not constitute a public office and that the teacher is merely an employee of the institution.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that for a writ of quo warranto to be issued, the office in question must be a public office. A university teacher/professor lacks sovereign or statutory authority and their duties do not involve public administration or the exercise of state power. Thus, the court concluded that the appointment does not meet the threshold of holding a public office.

Issues: The main issues were whether a university teaching position constitutes a public office and whether a writ of quo warranto is maintainable against an individual holding such a post.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of quo warranto is reserved for challenging appointments to offices involving the discharge of sovereign or public duties. Since the duties of a teaching professional are purely academic and governed by an employment contract, the office cannot be considered a public office, thereby rendering the writ petition non-maintainable at the threshold.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background leading up to the appointment and challenge. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. parties' contentions regarding appointment eligibility and writ maintainability. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. legal requirements and scope for issuing a writ of quo warranto. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. university faculty positions do not constitute public offices. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. dismissal of petition due to lack of maintainability. (Para 27)

ORDER

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 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), 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 contends that obtaining an appointment against a reserved post despite ineligibility amounts to a fraud upon the Constitution.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT(S)

10. Responde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4357

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHJai Kumar Pillai, JKshamasheel Mishra – AppellantVersusState of Madhya Pradesh – RespondentW.P. No. 5927/2024

A writ of quo warranto cannot be issued against a university teaching position because such roles are employment-based and lack the sovereign or delegated governmental characteristics required to satisfy the definition of a public office.

Cases Referred (7)

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Jai Kumar Pillai, J
Kshamasheel Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
W.P. No. 5927/2024