Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses To Reinstate Guest Faculty Accused Of Sending Objectionable Messages To Girl Student
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the termination of a guest faculty member of Government Women's Polytechnic College, who was removed from service for sending inappropriate messages to a female student and pressuring her to communicate.The bench of Justice Amit Seth observed,"Admittedly, invitation of the petitioner is that for a Guest Faculty which is purely temporary in nature and for...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the termination of a guest faculty member of Government Women's Polytechnic College, who was removed from service for sending inappropriate messages to a female student and pressuring her to communicate.
The bench of Justice Amit Seth observed,
"Admittedly, invitation of the petitioner is that for a Guest Faculty which is purely temporary in nature and for a particular academic session. The petitioner was working as a Guest Faculty in a Women college. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is of sending objectionable message to a girl student pressurizing her to talk with him. In his representation Annexure P/8, the petitioner has admitted that he tendered apology to the girl student".
The petition was filed by the Guest Faculty of Architecture and Interior Design in Government Women Polytechnic College, challenging the order wherein he was terminated from service.
Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that, on allegations that he misbehaved with a female student, his services were terminated without affording him an opportunity to hear.
The Senior Counsel argued that, following a complaint from the girl students on April 7, 2025, a committee was constituted and directed the petitioner to appear before the committee. However, during the time, the petitioner was in the police station with his mobile phone in custody, and therefore he was not able to see the messages sent by the committee.
The counsel for the State argued that the professor had sent an objectionable message to a female student and pressured her to talk with him. The counsel referred to annexure 8, noting that the petitioner had admitted to his guilt and thereafter tendered an apology.
Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the court held that it was not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. Therefore, the petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Azam Sher Khan v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-27685-2025
For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Jitendra Sharma with Advocate Nikhil Bhatele
For State: Government Advocate Brajesh Kumar Tyagi