W.P. No.5105/2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 15th OF MARCH, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 5105 of 2022
Between:-
DR. PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O
LATE SHRI ATMA RAM AGRAWAL , AGED
ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LECTURER, GOVERNMENT HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL, SARVAI, DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
( SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA, LEARNED SENIOR
COUNSEL WITH MS. SUPRIYA SINGH, COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (M.P.)
2. THE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS, DIRECTORATE OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS GAUTAM NAGAR
BHOPAL (M.P.)
3. SECRETARY, BOARD OF SECONDARY
EDUCATION, MADHYA PRADESH,
BHOPAL (M.P.)
4. COLLECTOR, DISTRICT-CHHATARPUR
(M.P.)
5. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO, LEARNED GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS/STATE )
W.P. No.5105/2022
2
This petition coming on for admission and interim relief this
day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 15.02.2022 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner is directed to show cause and also the order dt.18.02.2022 (Annexure P/2) is under challenge, whereby the charge of Principal, Higher Secondary School, Sarvai, District Chhatarpur, has been withdrawn from the petitioner and the same has been handed over to one Shri Rishi Tripathi, Lecturer.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner was placed under suspension from 2009 to 2017. The suspension was revoked after the intervention of this Court. As a consequence, the petitioner joined the duty but no salary was paid during July 2017 to December, 2020. From January, 2021 partly sum of Rs.22,000/- is being paid as against entitlement of Rs.1,15,000/- per month. In such an adverse situation, the petitioner is facing mental, social and financial harassment and it has become difficult to survive. The petitioner himself is physically handicapped person and daughter of the petitioner is also suffering from epilepsy by birth and she has to undergo regular treatment W.P. No.5105/2022 3 before Neuro Specialist. When the petitioner was working as Principal in the Higher Secondary School, Sarvai, District Chhatarpur, a letter dt.11.02.2022 has been issued by the District Education Officer, whereby work has been allotted to the petitioner as Superintendent/Centre In-charge for conducting Board Examination. After knowing that his name is included in the list, the petitioner filed a representation informing about the difficulty in performing the duty as In-charge of the examination centre. Instead of deciding the representation, a show cause notice has been issued alleging that the petitioner has declined to perform duty as In- charge of the examination centre. However, the petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 18.02.2022 but suddenly like a bolt from a blue the impugned order dt. 18.02.2022 has been passed withdrawing the charge of Principal from the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of withdrawing the charge of Principal from the petitioner is stigmatic and predetermined in nature and on this ground alone, the impugned orders deserves to set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner has no vested right over the additional charge of Principal, which is of temporary nature, as is evident from the order. There is no violation of any legal or fundamental right of the W.P. No.5105/2022 4 petitioner. The service condition of the petitioner is also not changed by withdrawing the additional charge. It is further contended that the petitioner has no right to ask for or stick to the additional charge. The impugned order does not cause any financial loss or prejudice of any kind to the petitioner. If the petitioner is unable to discharge his duties efficiently, the authorities have powers to replace him with another person, who can manage the affairs properly. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case State of Haryana Vs. S.M. Sharma & Ors. as reported in 1993 SCC supl. (3) 252.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The impugned order is only an order withdrawing the additional charge. Substantive post of the petitioner is Lecturer. The petitioner was neither appointed/promoted to the post of Principal nor he was reverted from the said post. He was only holding the additional charge, which has been withdrawn.
7. This Court is of the considered view that the respondents are within the powers to issue the impugned order dated 18.02.2022 (Annexure P/2) withdrawing the additional charge of Principal from the petitioner. So far as the impugned order dt.15.02.2022 (Annexure P/1) is concerned, it is a settled legal position that Writ Petition is not maintainable against a show cause notice.
W.P. No.5105/2022 5
8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the instant petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Shanu Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2022.03.16 17:53:54 +05'30'