1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 12/09/2025 passed by Respondent No.2, whereby while deciding the representation of the petitioner pursuant to the directions issued by this Court earlier, the petitioner was directed to work on her substantive post of Professor of Chemistry instead of continuing as In-charge Principal, Government Holkar Science College, Indore.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Professor on 01/01/1985 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Professor in the year 2006. She has been serving in Government Holkar Science College, Indore since her transfer dated 15/06/2015.

3. In the year 2024, online applications were invited under the Academic Cadre in Prime Minister College of Excellence Scheme for appointment of In-charge Principal in Government Autonomous Colleges. The petitioner applied, participated in the interview process, and stood at Serial No.1 in the merit list prepared by the Commissioner of Higher Education. Accordingly, by order dated 08/11/2024, the petitioner was entrusted with the charge of In-charge Principal and posted at Government Holkar Science College, Indore, as per her preference.

4. Subsequently, vide transfer order dated 03/06/2025, the petitioner was transferred to B.K.S.N Govt. College, Shajapur. Aggrieved by the said transfer order, she filed W.P. No.20176/2025, which was disposed of by this Court on 09/06/2025 directing the respondent authorities to decide her representation in accordance with law. In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted a representation on 16/06/2025, which came to be decided by order dated 12/09/2025. By the said order, the petitioner was directed to work on her substantive post of Professor of Chemistry. The said order is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was selected strictly on merit and after due process under the PM College of Excellence Scheme, and therefore, her reversion from the charge of In-charge Principal is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and is thus violative of the principles of natural justice. It was also argued that the respondents have acted beyond the scope of the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.20176/2025, which were confined only to deciding the petitioner's representation against transfer.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner was appointed only as In-charge Principal under an interim administrative arrangement under the PM College of Excellence Scheme, and such appointment was neither permanent nor substantive in nature. It was submitted that subsequent to the petitioner's appointment as In-charge Principal, this Court, vide order dated 11/07/2025 passed in W.P. No.35404/2024 categorically held that a Professor who is substantively junior cannot be posted as In-charge Principal in a college where senior Professors are already posted unless such senior Professors give their written consent.

7. It was further pointed out that the petitioner herself by filing an additional affidavit dated 19/09/2025 admitted that in the seniority list of Professors posted at Government Holkar Science College, Indore, she stands at Serial No.6, and therefore, she is not the senior-most Professor. It was also argued that in view of the binding directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.35404/2024, the respondents were left with no option but to direct the petitioner to work on her substantive post of Professor of Chemistry.

8. Heard both parties at length and examined the entire record available.

9. This Court is of the considered opinion that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as In-charge Principal under the Academic Cadre in Prime Minister College of Excellence Scheme. The said scheme was introduced as an interim administrative measure owing to the prevailing situation in the State where regular promotions to the post of Principal are stalled due to judicial orders concerning reservation in promotion. Therefore, the appointment under the said scheme is purely temporary, stop-gap, and arrangement-based, intended only to ensure smooth administrative functioning of Government Colleges.

10. An appointment made as an In-charge Principal, by its very nature, does not amount to a substantive or permanent appointment. It does not create any legal right in favour of the incumbent to continue on the said post indefinitely. The petitioner continues to hold her substantive post of Professor of Chemistry and the charge of In-charge Principal was merely an additional administrative responsibility liable to be withdrawn at any time in accordance with law.

11. This Court finds significant force in the submission of the respondents that subsequent to the petitioner's appointment as In-charge Principal, Principle Bench of this Court passed a detailed and binding order dated 11/07/2025 in W.P. No.35404/2024, wherein it was categorically held that a Professor who is substantively junior cannot be posted as In-charge Principal in a college where senior Professors are already posted unless such senior Professors give their written consent. The said judgment squarely governs the issue involved in the present case and is binding on the respondent authorities.

12. In compliance with the aforesaid judicial mandate, the respondent authorities were required to examine the seniority position of the petitioner vis-à-vis other Professors posted in Government Holkar Science College, Indore. In this regard, it is of crucial relevance that the petitioner herself by filing an additional affidavit dated 19/09/2025 has categorically admitted that in the seniority list of Professors posted in the said college, she stands at Serial No.6. This admission completely demolishes the foundation of the petitioner's claim.

13. Once the petitioner has herself acknowledged that she is not the senior-most Professor, there remains no scope for this Court to accept her contention that she was entitled to continue as In-charge Principal. The petitioner has also failed to place on record any documentary evidence to establish that she is the senior-most eligible Professor in the said institution. Mere assertion without supporting material cannot form the basis for granting relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

14. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order amounts to demotion or reversion is wholly misconceived. The petitioner has not been reverted from any substantive post. She continues to hold her regular post of Professor of Chemistry, which is her substantive cadre post. Withdrawal of an additional charge or temporary assignment does not amount to demotion nor does it carry any civil consequences so as to attract the principles of natural justice.

15. This Court also finds no merit in the contention that the respondents have exceeded the scope of the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.20176/2025. The earlier directions required the respondent authorities to decide the petitioner's representation "in accordance with law." While deciding the representation, the respondents were duty-bound to take into consideration subsequent developments and binding judicial pronouncements particularly the order dated 11/07/2025 passed in W.P. No.35404/2024. Therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary or beyond jurisdiction.

16. The plea of mala-fides and colourable exercise of power raised by the petitioner is found to be bald, vague, and unsupported by any cogent material. Allegations of mala-fide are required to be pleaded with specificity and proved with convincing evidence, which is completely absent in the present case. On the contrary, the impugned action appears to be a direct consequence of compliance with the binding directions issued by this Court.

17. This Court is also mindful of the settled principle of law that no employee has a vested right to hold a charge or officiating post, especially when such post is not a substantive cadre post. Judicial review in service matters is limited and unless the action of the employer is shown to be patently illegal, arbitrary, or actuated by malice, interference under Article 226 is not warranted. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the respondent authorities have acted strictly in accordance with law and judicial directions. The impugned order dated 12/09/2025 neither suffers from illegality nor arbitrariness and does not call for any interference by this Court.

18. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

19. However, it is observed that the respondent authorities shall strictly follow the guidelines and directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.35404/2024. If, upon consideration of the seniority list, the petitioner is found to be the senior-most eligible Professor in accordance with law, it shall be open for the respondents to consider her case for appointment as In-charge Principal in accordance with the applicable policy.

20. Pending applications shall be disposed off accordingly.