University Lecturer Not A 'Public Office', Writ Of Quo Warranto Not Maintainable: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea seeking a writ of quo wattanto against the appointment of a University lecturer, holding that teachers, professors and readers do not hold a public office and therefore such a relief was not maintainable. The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed; "An Associate Professor or Professor has no sovereign or public function to discharge. They do not interact publicly in their duties, nor do they discharge duties in the public domain affecting the legal rights of the citizenry at large. Professors, readers, or teachers cannot be grouped to treat them in the category of holders of a public office". The petition was filed to challenge the appointment of respondent no 6 to the post of Lecturer in Computer Science and Applications in the Respondent no. 3 University. The appointment was made in 1996 against a post reserved for the OBC category (non-creamy layer).It was contended that the appointment did not possess the requisite qualifications at the time of application, including a master's degree with minimum required marks and NET/SET qualification or valid exemption. The petitioner also alleged that the respondent failed to acquire eligibility even after being granted time by the university and had submitted an invalid caste certificate. The counsel for the University argued that the matter was already examined internally and was pending before the Chancellor for final decision. Respondent no 6 also opposed the petition, contending that the relief of quo warranto cannot be sought as a teacher is merely an employee and does not hold a public office. The court noted that the petitioner had sought a writ of quo warranto, a prerogative writ issued to oust a person from a public office if it is found that the office has been usurped by an individual lacking the requisite qualifications. The bench outlined the essential conditions for issuance of such a writ; The post or office held by the person against whom the writ is sought for, is of the nature of public office. The appointment of the post must be found to contrary to statutory provisions defining the eligibility of the post.The order is an usurper without legal authority and is unqualified to man the post, which is a public office. Emphasizing the nature of a public offence, the court observed that such a post must carry public duties and have a direct nexus with functions performed in the public domain. In contrast, respondent no 6, initially appointed as a Lecturer and now serving as an Assistant Professor, holds a position that is purely within the framework of employee-employer. The court further held that teaching faculty cannot be regarded as holders of public office, noting that they neither discharge sovereign functions nor perform duties impacting the public at large. The bench held; "By no stretch of imagination, given the very nature of their post and the work and duties attached, can teaching faculty become holders of a public office. For all the above considerations, the post of Associate Professor held by Respondent No. 6 is not a public office".The court further held that the fundamental requirement for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto was not satisfied in the matter. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition. Case Title: Dr Kshamasheel Mishra v State of Madhya Pradesh [W.P. No. 5927/2024]Click here to read/download the Order

University Lecturer Not A 'Public Office', Writ Of Quo Warranto Not Maintainable: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags