PM College of Excellence Postings: Common Counselling and Choice-Based Safeguards for Professors

The State challenged orders concerning the selection and posting of Professors as In-charge Principals in upgraded Pradhan Mantri Colleges of Excellence (PMCEs). The Division Bench treated the exercise as a policy-driven posting of existing teaching staff, rather than recruitment or substantive promotion to the post of Principal, and recognised the State’s need to staff upgraded colleges when regular Principals were scarce. At the same time, it directed a common/open counselling process for Professors who had approached the Court and wished to be posted as In-charge Principals, while providing alternatives for those who did not obtain a preferred college. The connected writ appeals were disposed of with modified directions. (Paras 28–32)

Key Proposition: Posting an existing Professor as In-charge Principal in a PMCE is a policy-based posting rather than substantive appointment or promotion; fairness is to be secured through common/open counselling and the alternatives directed by the Court.

• Service law – PMCE policy dated 5 August 2024 – Posting of In-charge Principals – Whether the exercise constituted appointment or promotion to the post of Principal – Held, no; it was a posting of existing teaching staff. (Paras 28–29)
• Service law – Seniority – Whether a senior Professor had an automatic right to be posted as In-charge Principal in a PMCE – Held, no such automatic right was recognised. (Paras 30–31)
• Administrative law – Common/open counselling – What process should govern eligible Professors who approached the Court and sought PMCE postings – Held, common/open counselling with specified alternatives. (Para 32)

Background / Synopsis :

• The State introduced a policy on 5 August 2024 to upgrade selected government colleges as Pradhan Mantri Colleges of Excellence, aligned with the National Education Policy. The policy provided for merit-based postings and limited candidates to two college preferences.
• The policy itself had been upheld by a Single Judge on 27 August 2024. On 8 November 2024, the State issued posting orders, including postings of Professors as In-charge Principals because regular Principals were insufficient in number.
• Several Professors challenged postings under which colleagues junior to them in the Professor cadre were made In-charge Principals at colleges where the petitioners were already serving. Different Single Judge orders granted relief, including quashing certain postings and requiring additional options or counselling.
• The State and other appellants filed connected writ appeals against those orders. The Division Bench considered the connected disputes together and modified the directions to create a common mechanism.

Issues For Consideration :

• Whether the PMCE posting process amounted to appointment or promotion to the substantive post of Principal, or instead constituted posting of existing teaching staff.
• Whether seniority in the Professor cadre conferred an automatic right to be posted as In-charge Principal at a PMCE.
• What fair and workable process should apply to Professors who had approached the Court and wished to be considered for PMCE postings.

Submissions Of Parties :

Appellants – State and other appellants:

• The State argued that the policy had already been upheld and that the impugned orders interfered with its merit-based process for staffing upgraded colleges.
• It maintained that an In-charge Principal posting was neither a fresh appointment nor a promotion, and that the State had very few regular Principals available for hundreds of government colleges.
• The appellants sought setting aside of the Single Judge orders and dismissal of the writ petitions.

Respondents – Professors / writ petitioners:

• They contended that eligible and senior Professors had been overlooked while junior Professors were posted as In-charge Principals in their existing colleges.
• They argued that the merit-based policy required a transparent, fair process and could not justify arrangements that compelled a senior Professor to work under a junior colleague without adequate consideration of the senior Professor’s candidature.
• They supported directions for common counselling or broader choice of colleges, while accepting that no automatic appointment as Principal followed merely from seniority.

Court's Observations & Analysis :

Re: Nature of PMCE postings

• The Court noted that existing Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors would continue to be posted in their respective cadres. The In-charge Principal arrangement addressed the practical shortage of regular Principals and did not amount to recruitment or substantive promotion.
• The State was pursuing a policy objective of deploying experienced academic staff to upgraded institutions. The Court considered the arrangement a matter of policy warranting judicial restraint, subject to the operative safeguards. (Paras 28–30)

Re: Seniority and administrative charge

• The Court addressed the concern that a junior Professor serving as In-charge Principal at a PMCE might later claim priority over senior Professors in a regular college. It considered that concern unfounded in light of the consequences of opting for a PMCE posting.
• The Court also recognised the practical need to avoid uncertainty where a senior Professor did not consent or was not found suitable for the charge. Seniority alone did not translate into an automatic right to a PMCE posting. (Paras 30–31)

Re: Common counselling and alternatives

• To reconcile policy implementation with fair consideration of affected Professors, the Court modified the earlier directions and ordered common/open counselling for Professors who had approached the Court and were interested in PMCE postings.
• Those not allotted a college of choice could decline the PMCE posting and either be posted to another government college among their two choices or remain at their present college, without objecting to a junior being In-charge Principal at the PMCE.
• If transferred back to a regular government college as Professor, they were to be considered for In-charge Principal by reference to their seniority in that college. Held: connected appeals disposed of on these modified terms. (Para 32)

Notable Observations: No distinct short obiter quotation is necessary to convey the holding; the operative directions in paragraph 32 are the controlling part of the decision.

Decision & Directions :

• The connected writ appeals were disposed of with modified directions.
• The State must conduct common/open counselling for Professors who had approached the Court and wished to be posted as Principal/In-charge Principal in PMCEs.
• If such Professors did not obtain a college of their choice and declined the PMCE posting, the authorities must either post them to another government college among their two choices or permit them to continue at their existing college. They may not then object to a junior being In-charge Principal in a PMCE.
• If transferred from a PMCE to a regular government college as Professor, they must be considered for In-charge Principal by reference to their seniority in that college.

Legal Provisions Discussed & Precedents Cited :

• Constitution of India – Article 226: writ jurisdiction invoked in the underlying petitions.
• Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005: statutory basis for the writ appeals.
• State policy dated 5 August 2024 on upgradation of government colleges as PMCEs: merit-based selection/posting and preference limits.
• National Education Policy: policy context for the PMCE upgradation programme.
• State of Orissa v. Bhikari Charan Khuntia – referred to in the Court’s discussion of judicial restraint in policy matters; full citation not reproduced here because it should be verified from the judgment.