MP High Court Refuses Relief To Guest Faculty Accused Of Messaging Girl Student Inappropriately

A guest faculty member accused of sending objectionable messages to a female student of a government women's college failed to secure relief from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction despite his challenge to the manner in which his services were terminated.

Justice Amit Seth passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Azam Sher Khan, who had sought quashing of an April 8, 2025 termination order and a direction to continue him as Guest Faculty in Architecture and Interior Design at Government Women Polytechnic College, Gwalior, until regular appointments were made in accordance with government policy.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Jitendra Sharma, assisted by Advocate Nikhil Bhatele, argued that Khan's services were terminated without adherence to the principles of natural justice and without obtaining approval from the competent authority as allegedly required under a government circular dated November 8, 2023. The petitioner contended that a complaint alleging misconduct with girl students was received on April 7, 2025, following which a committee was constituted and directed to submit its report within three days.

According to the petitioner's case, the committee merely conveyed information telephonically asking him to appear before it. However, he claimed that at the relevant time he was being kept at a police station and did not have access to his mobile phone. As a result, he could neither receive nor respond to the communication. It was argued that the committee proceeded in haste and his services were terminated the very next day through what was described as a stigmatic order carrying adverse consequences for his future career prospects.

The State, represented by Government Advocate Brajesh Kumar Tyagi, opposed the plea and defended the termination order. The State submitted that the allegations against the petitioner were serious in nature and related to sending objectionable messages to a girl student while pressurising her to speak with him. Given that the petitioner was serving as a teacher in a women's college, the allegations could not be viewed lightly. The State further pointed out that in his own representation the petitioner had admitted his conduct and tendered an apology to the student concerned.

After considering the rival submissions, the Court noted that the petitioner's engagement as a guest faculty member was temporary and limited to a particular academic session. It also took note of the allegation that he had sent objectionable messages to a female student and had admitted the incident while apologising to her in a subsequent representation.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in M.S. Sanjay v. Indian Bank and Others (2025), which emphasised that the High Court's powers under Article 226 are discretionary and must be exercised with due regard to equitable considerations. Referring to the judgment, the Court quoted that, "even if some action or order challenged in the petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties."

Applying that principle, Justice Seth observed that the writ jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 is discretionary in nature and that even where some illegality may be alleged, the Court is not bound to interfere. The judge held that in the facts of the present case, interference was not warranted and therefore declined to set aside the termination order.

At the same time, the Court granted limited protection to the petitioner by clarifying that any findings recorded in the termination order would remain confined to the purpose of ending his guest faculty engagement. It directed that such findings should not be considered while assessing his candidature for future employment opportunities, including any future invitation as guest faculty.

Any such application, the Court said, must be examined independently and "dehors the order of termination" challenged in the present proceedings. With those observations, the writ petition was disposed of.

Case Title: Azam Sher Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: May 15, 2025

Bench: Justice Amit Seth