Nisha Pandey vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote:(A) M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966; MP Technical Education Polytechnic College (Teaching Cadre) Service Recruitment Rules, 2004; AICTE Diploma Regulation, 2019 - Transfer of administrative charge of in-charge Principal without show cause notice or departmental proceedings - Malafide established via undisputed documentary facts when complaints are lodged by direct beneficiaries of the action - Order based on an inquiry conducted by a revenue authority lacking jurisdiction over service matters of teaching staff is legally invalid (Paras 11, 16).

(B) Qualifications for Principal - Requirement of experience as Head of Department is mandatory and non-waivable - Non-technical faculty not eligible for the post of Principal in a technical college - State recruitment rules prevail over regulatory guidelines where conflict arises (Paras 12, 13).

(C) Seniority - Departmental practice of assigning in-charge charge to the senior-most lecturer must be adhered to in the absence of administrative exigency (Para 14).

Facts of the case:
A senior lecturer serving as in-charge Principal of a government polytechnic college was removed from the post. The action followed complaints filed by a private contractor, whose contract had been cancelled by the official, and another lecturer who was the beneficiary of the transfer. The removal was based on a report from a committee constituted by a revenue authority, and the order was passed without issuance of a show cause notice or initiation of departmental proceedings by the competent parent department.

Findings of Court:
The removal order was passed in breach of natural justice and relied on an inquiry conducted by an authority without jurisdiction. The replacement official did not possess the mandatory qualification of having held a Head of Department post. The complaints were found to be malafide and filed by interested parties after the cancellation of a contract.

Issues: Whether the removal of a senior, qualified in-charge Principal and the appointment of a junior, unqualified person based on a jurisdictionally incompetent inquiry and without following natural justice is legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative order passed in the shadow of a jurisdictionally incompetent inquiry, vitiated by malafide, and in breach of the rules of seniority, recruitment qualifications, and natural justice, cannot be sustained.

Result: Writ appeal allowed. Judgment of the Single Judge set aside. Impugned order quashed. Administrative charge restored to the appellant.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Challenge to transfer of in-charge principal charge from senior lecturer to another lecturer on grounds of malafides and jurisdictional error. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )

2. Appellant argued malafides from complaints by beneficiaries and lack of jurisdiction; respondents defended order on basis of inquiry report and qualifications. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )

3. Writ appeal allowed, single judge judgment set aside, impugned order quashed, charge restored to appellant. (Para 17 )

4. Can malafides be inferred from undisputed documentary facts without requiring trial?

Yes, where malafide is apparent from undisputed documentary facts such as complaints by beneficiaries, the court cannot refuse examination by labelling it as disputed facts. (Para 6 , 7 )

5. Does the Collector have jurisdiction to constitute an inquiry committee into service conduct of a teacher of a Government Polytechnic College?

No, disciplinary control and supervisory jurisdiction over such teachers vests in the Technical Education Department, not the Collector; a committee constituted by the Collector is without jurisdiction and its report has no legal validity. (Para 10 )

6. What are the qualifications for appointment as Principal of a Government Polytechnic College under applicable rules and AICTE regulations?

The post requires a technical degree and minimum five years' experience at the level of Head of Department, which a lecturer in a non-technical subject like Mathematics cannot satisfy in the absence of a sanctioned HoD post. (Para 12 )

7. Can an order be sustained based on an inquiry report that was not before the court and obtained after the decision?

No, an inquiry report obtained through RTI after the impugned order and after dismissal of the writ petition cannot be the basis for the order and was not part of the record before the writ court. (Para 8 , 9 )

8. Is seniority a relevant factor for assignment of in-charge charge of Principal in the absence of valid justification?

Yes, the departmental practice of assigning in-charge charge based on seniority cannot be deviated from without valid administrative justification, especially when only complaints by interested persons are cited. (Para 14 )

ORDER :

Pradeep Mittal, J.

This writ appeal challenges the judgment dated 16.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2861/2026, whereby the petition filed by the appellant Smt. Nisha Pandey, Senior Lecturer (Civil Engineering), Government Polytechnic College, Rewa was dismissed, leaving undisturbed the order dated 19.01.2026 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Skill Development and Employment, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, by which the administrative charge of in-charge Principal of the said college was transferred from the appellant to Dr. Rishikesh Tripathi (Respondent No. 4), a Lecturer in Mathematics.

2. The relevant background facts, as emerging from the record, may be noticed briefly. The appellant was appointed as Lecturer (Civil Engineering) on 09.07.2009. She was deputed to Government Polytechnic College, Rewa on 28.05.2011 and was absorbed therein on 27.04.2018. Respondent No. 4, Dr. Rishikesh Tripathi, was appointed as Lecturer (Mathematics) on 07.09.2009 and was absorbed at Rewa only on 01.01.2025 nearly seven years after the appellant's absorption. By order dated 06.07.2023 issued by the Directorate of Technical Education, the administrative charge of in-charge Principal was handed over to the appellant as the senior-most teacher, upon the previous in-charge being transferred.

3. A precise chronological reading of the events on record is essential to appreciating the challenge made in this appeal. The sequence is as follows: On 25.06.2025, the appellant, in the discharge of her duties as in- charge Principal, took disciplinary action against M/s MP Security and Allied Services (Shri Santosh Pandey, proprietor) an outsourced cleaning agency for financial irregularities and misconduct, and cancelled its contract. On 30.07.2025, a complaint letter was received by the Directorate of Technical Education from the Assistant Inspector General, Economic Offences Wing (EOW) Headquarters, Bhopal, bearing Complaint Inward No. 01887/2025(1); it is pertinent that this complaint surfaced after, and not before, the cancellation of the contractor's contract. On 06.08.2025, the Joint Commissioner directed the Collector, Rewa to examine a complaint filed by Shri Santosh Pandey the very same private contractor whose contract had been cancelled by the appellant. On 25.08.2025, the Directorate of Technical Education, by letter No. S-10/B/E.F. No. 734232/2025/403, appointed Dr. A.K. Dohare, Professor (Electronics Engg.), Rewa Engineering College, and Prof. G.R. Kumre, Professor (Electronics Engg.), Rewa Engineering College, as Inquiry Officers to investigate the EOW complaint an order approved by the Additional Director, Directorate of Technical Education (M.P.), acting under the authority of the Commissioner, being a departmentally competent authority. On 15.10.2025, the Additional Collector, Rewa constituted a three- member committee comprising the SDM (Huzur), the Tehsildar (Huzur), and an Assistant Accounts Officer to enquire into a complaint filed by Respondent No. 4; the legal competence of the Collector to constitute such a committee is a matter of serious challenge, addressed hereinafter. On 29.11.2025, the said three-member committee submitted its report; the competence of this committee and the legal validity of its report are equally disputed and fall for examination below. On 19.01.2026, the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Technical Education, transferring the charge of in-charge Principal from the appellant to Respondent No. 4 without any show cause notice being issued to the appellant by the Technical Education Department and without any departmental proceedings being initiated against her. On 21.01.2026, the appellant filed W.P. No. 2861/2026, whereupon two caveats were filed on the very same day one by Respondent No. 4 and one by Shri Santosh Pandey, the private contractor in near-identical terms, pointing to a common design. On 16.03.2026

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 457

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK RUSIA, PRADEEP MITTAL, JJ.
Nisha Pandey - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 1077 of 2026
Decided On : 06-05-2026

An administrative order transferring charge is unsustainable if passed without natural justice, based on a jurisdictionally incompetent inquiry, ignores mandatory recruitment qualifications (such as HoD experience), and is vitiated by malafide intend to benefit specific parties.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can malafides be inferred from undisputed documentary facts without requiring trial?

5. Does the Collector have jurisdiction to constitute an inquiry committee into service conduct of a teacher of a Government Polytechnic College?

6. What are the qualifications for appointment as Principal of a Government Polytechnic College under applicable rules and AICTE regulations?

7. Can an order be sustained based on an inquiry report that was not before the court and obtained after the decision?

8. Is seniority a relevant factor for assignment of in-charge charge of Principal in the absence of valid justification?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 457

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPURVIVEK RUSIA, PRADEEP MITTAL, JJ.Nisha Pandey - AppellantVersus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – RespondentsWrit Appeal No. 1077 of 2026Decided On : 06-05-2026

An administrative order transferring charge is unsustainable if passed without natural justice, based on a jurisdictionally incompetent inquiry, ignores mandatory recruitment qualifications (such as HoD experience), and is vitiated by malafide intend to benefit specific parties.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can malafides be inferred from undisputed documentary facts without requiring trial?

5. Does the Collector have jurisdiction to constitute an inquiry committee into service conduct of a teacher of a Government Polytechnic College?

6. What are the qualifications for appointment as Principal of a Government Polytechnic College under applicable rules and AICTE regulations?

7. Can an order be sustained based on an inquiry report that was not before the court and obtained after the decision?

8. Is seniority a relevant factor for assignment of in-charge charge of Principal in the absence of valid justification?

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK RUSIA, PRADEEP MITTAL, JJ.
Nisha Pandey - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 1077 of 2026
Decided On : 06-05-2026