Madhya Pradesh High Court Says Class-I Professors Cannot Be Placed Under Junior Officers For Census Duty

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed authorities to immediately cancel Census 2026-27 duties assigned to 51 Class-I faculty members of Ujjain Engineering College, holding that compelling senior professors to work as enumerators and supervisors under junior officers was legally and administratively unsustainable.

Justice Jai Kumar Pillai passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by Dr. Smt. Savita Maru and other faculty members of the autonomous engineering college in Ujjain.

The petitioners argued that they were illegally assigned census duties despite holding gazetted Class-I posts of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor under the Madhya Pradesh Technical Education Department. They contended that the assignment violated the Census Rules, 1990, ignored the official hierarchy and would seriously disrupt academic activities at the college.

The petitioners were represented by Advocate L.C. Patne, while Deputy Advocate General Pranjali Yajurvedi appeared for the State.

According to the plea, the faculty members started receiving text messages directing them to attend census training programmes between April 24 and April 26, 2026, and thereafter perform duties as enumerators and supervisors during the Census 2027 exercise. The court noted that the Ministry of Home Affairs had already notified house listing operations for the period between April 1 and September 30, 2026.

Examining Rule 3 of the Census Rules, 1990, the court observed that enumerators are generally appointed from among teachers, clerks or other employees of similar rank. The court held that the expression “any person” appearing in the Rules could not be interpreted to include senior Class-I officers drawing pay scales under Level-13A1 and Level-14.

The bench also relied on the General FAQ issued on the official Census 2027 portal, which states that enumerators are usually appointed from among teachers, revenue officials, health workers, municipal staff and other subordinate government employees, while supervisors are generally officers higher in rank than enumerators. Referring to this clarification, the court said assigning senior professors to work under officers belonging to Class-II or Class-III executive cadres created “a severe administrative anomaly.”

The High Court further accepted the petitioners’ argument that the assignment would adversely affect ongoing academic responsibilities. The court recorded that end semester examinations for BE and BTech courses had commenced on April 24, 2026, practical examinations were scheduled in May and the institution was also required to facilitate the conduct of NEET-2026 on May 3. The petitioners argued that relieving all 51 faculty members for census duties would effectively force the closure of the institution and affect thousands of students.

The court also took note of communications sent by the college principal clarifying that the inclusion of Class-I officers in the list forwarded for census duties was a mistake. In a subsequent letter dated April 13, 2026, the principal specifically requested authorities to cancel census duties assigned to the faculty members. Quoting the communication, the court recorded that “by mistake, a list of Class I officers was also included.”

Allowing the petition, the court directed authorities to “immediately issue appropriate instructions” cancelling the census duties of all 51 Class-I officers. However, the bench clarified that the ruling was being passed in the peculiar facts of the case and “shall not apply as a precedent for other cases.”

The court emphasized that its interference was warranted because the statutory framework, the official census guidelines and the withdrawal letter issued by the principal all pointed in the same direction. It observed that maintaining administrative hierarchy within government institutions was essential for smooth functioning and institutional discipline.

The bench ultimately concluded that continuing the deployment of the petitioners despite the corrected communication from the college administration would be arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of the Census Rules, 1990.

Case Title: Dr. Smt. Savita Maru and Others v. The Directorate of Census Operations Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: April 29, 2026

Bench: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai