Introduction:

The case of Dr Kshamasheel Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh [W.P. No. 5927/2024] came before the Madhya Pradesh High Court raising an important constitutional question regarding the scope and applicability of the writ of quo warranto in the context of appointments within academic institutions. The petitioner, Dr Kshamasheel Mishra, approached the High Court seeking the issuance of a writ of quo warranto against Respondent No. 6, who had been appointed as a Lecturer in Computer Science and Applications in a State University in the year 1996. The appointment in question was made against a post reserved for the Other Backward Classes category (non-creamy layer). The petitioner challenged the legality of this appointment on the ground that the respondent allegedly did not possess the requisite qualifications at the time of application and had further failed to acquire eligibility within the time permitted by the University. The matter was heard by a bench presided over by Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, who was called upon to determine whether the writ of quo warranto could be invoked against a university teacher and whether such a position could be classified as a public office within the meaning of constitutional jurisprudence. The case thus brought into focus the doctrinal contours of public office, the distinction between public employment and public office, and the conditions necessary for invoking one of the most significant prerogative writs available under constitutional law.

Arguments:

The petitioner advanced detailed submissions challenging the validity of the appointment of Respondent No. 6. It was contended that at the time of applying for the post of Lecturer, the respondent lacked the essential qualifications prescribed by the relevant statutory and regulatory framework governing university appointments. Specifically, the petitioner argued that the respondent did not possess a master’s degree with the minimum required marks and had neither cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) nor the State Eligibility Test (SET), nor did he possess any valid exemption from such requirements. The petitioner further alleged that even after being granted time by the University to acquire the necessary qualifications, the respondent failed to meet the eligibility criteria, thereby continuing in the post without legal authority. An additional allegation was raised regarding the validity of the caste certificate submitted by the respondent, with the petitioner asserting that the certificate was invalid and that the appointment to a reserved category post was therefore fraudulent and contrary to law. On these grounds, the petitioner sought the issuance of a writ of quo warranto to oust the respondent from the position, arguing that the continuation of an unqualified individual in a public post undermines the rule of law and violates the principles of equality and fairness in public employment.

In response, the University as well as Respondent No. 6 strongly opposed the maintainability of the petition. The University’s counsel submitted that the issue regarding the respondent’s appointment and qualifications had already been examined internally and was pending consideration before the Chancellor, who is the competent authority to take a final decision in such matters. It was argued that the writ petition was premature and that the petitioner had approached the Court without exhausting the available institutional remedies. Respondent No. 6, on the other hand, raised a fundamental objection to the very maintainability of the writ of quo warranto. It was contended that the position of a Lecturer or Assistant Professor in a University does not constitute a public office in the constitutional sense. The respondent argued that a teacher is essentially an employee engaged in an employer-employee relationship with the University and does not exercise any sovereign functions or public duties that would bring the post within the ambit of a public office. It was further submitted that the writ of quo warranto can only be issued in cases where a person is holding a public office without legal authority and that since the respondent did not hold such an office, the petition was liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The respondents thus urged the Court to reject the petition on the ground of non-maintainability without going into the merits of the allegations regarding qualifications or caste certificate.

Judgment:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, after carefully considering the submissions of both sides and examining the legal principles governing the issuance of a writ of quo warranto, proceeded to determine the central issue of whether the post of a university teacher could be regarded as a public office. Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, delivering the judgment, undertook a detailed analysis of the nature and scope of the writ of quo warranto, emphasizing that it is a prerogative writ issued to prevent a person from usurping a public office without legal authority. The Court outlined the essential conditions that must be satisfied for the issuance of such a writ, namely that the office in question must be a public office, that the appointment must be contrary to statutory provisions, and that the person holding the office must be lacking the requisite qualifications or authority. The Court stressed that the first and foremost requirement is that the office must be a public office, as the writ cannot be issued in respect of private or non-public positions.

In examining the nature of the post held by Respondent No. 6, the Court observed that a Lecturer or Assistant Professor in a University does not perform any sovereign or governmental functions. The duties of such a position are primarily academic and confined within the institutional framework of the University. The Court noted that teachers do not interact with the public in a manner that affects the legal rights of citizens at large, nor do they discharge functions that can be characterised as public duties in the constitutional sense. The Bench categorically held that the role of a teacher is fundamentally different from that of a public office holder who exercises authority on behalf of the State or performs functions that have a direct impact on the public domain.

The Court further elaborated that a public office must involve the discharge of duties that are of a public character and must have a direct nexus with governance or the exercise of sovereign power. In contrast, the position of a university teacher is governed by an employer-employee relationship and does not carry the attributes of a public office. The Bench emphatically observed that by no stretch of imagination can teaching faculty be treated as holders of a public office, given the nature of their duties and the absence of any sovereign or public functions. The Court thus concluded that the fundamental requirement for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto was not satisfied in the present case.

Having reached this conclusion, the Court held that it was not necessary to examine the merits of the allegations regarding the respondent’s qualifications or the validity of the caste certificate. Since the writ itself was not maintainable, the petition was liable to be dismissed. The Court also took note of the submission made by the University that the matter was already under consideration by the Chancellor, indicating that appropriate remedies were available within the institutional framework. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no relief could be granted to the petitioner under the jurisdiction of quo warranto. The judgment thus reinforces the limited scope of the writ and clarifies that it cannot be invoked in cases where the office in question does not meet the criteria of a public office.