Diwakar Prasad Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3271 MP

                                                         1                              WP-10715-2021
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                         WP-10715-2021
                              (DIWAKAR PRASAD SHUKLA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                      4
                      Jabalpur, Dated : 14-07-2021
                            Heard through Video Conferencing.
                            Shri K. C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                            Shri Devendra Gangrade, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
                            Shri Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the caveator.
                            Shri Amit Seth, learned counsel for the intervener.

                            Petitioner has called in question order dated 14.6.2021 contained in
                      Annexure P/8 by which petitioner was sent back to his parent organization i.e.
                      Shashkiya Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Amaliya, Sidhi and one Vinay
                      Mishra-respondent no.5 was given charge temporarily on post of Block

Resource Coordinator, Janpad Shiksha Kendra, Sidhi.

Impugned order dated 14.6.2021 is under challenge on the ground that same is illegal, arbitrary and malafide in nature. Order is passed to give favour to respondent no.5. Order caste stigma on petitioner, therefore, he ought to have been heard and competence of District Education Officer to

pass impugned order in question.

Respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 had filed their reply and stated therein that deployment of petitioner as Block Resource Coordinator in Janpad Shiksha Kendra Sidhi was made without following the procedure laid down. There were several complaints against petitioner. Mandamus cannot be issued seeking continuation or conferment of temporarily or additional charge to any post. Collector himself took cognizance of matter and in consultation with Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sidhi and District Education Officer reviewed the matter in official file and administrative order was passed repatriating petitioner to his substantive post in parent school. It is submitted that entire note sheets have been placed on record by filing I.A.No.

Signature Not 13351/2021 dated 26.6.2021, i.e. application for taking document on record. SAN Verified

Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2021.07.16 18:31:05 IST 2 WP-10715-2021 It is also submitted by them that impugned order has been approved by Collector and, therefore, order is passed by Collector and no procedural irregularity is there in passing of the impugned order.

Shri Amit Seth, learned counsel has filed an application (I.A.No. 6026/2021) for intervention. It is submitted by him that legal and fundamental rights of proposed interveners have been infringed by petitioner and on their

complaint action has been taken by Authorities, therefore, interveners may be allowed to participate in the proceedings and object to writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner has opposed the prayer of interveners. It is submitted by him that interverners are not directly affected by the impugned order, therefore, application for intervention may be disallowed.

In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 14.6.2021. By the said order, petitioner was sent back to his parent school on his redeployment/deputation. By the said order, rights of interveners are not affected. Action of petitioner may have infringed rights of interveners, but said action is not in challenge or under consideration before this Court. Interveners may be indirectly affected if order dated 14.6.2021 is quashed by this Court. Interveners does not have any direct interest in order dated 14.6.2021. Interveners may be complainant, therefore, they may adduce evidence before the Authority for consideration of complaint but they cannot be impleaded as an adversary party in the writ petition. In view of same, application filed by the interveners is dismissed.

Heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and 5.

Question before this Court is whether there is any procedural impropriety in passing impugned order dated 14.6.2021. Respondents in their return had submitted that redeployment of petitioner vide order dated 9.5.2017 itself is bad in law as order is passed without complying with procedure established for appointment on deputation on the post of Block Resource Coordinator. Order dated 9.5.2017 has not been challenged by Signature SAN Not Verified

Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2021.07.16 18:31:05 IST 3 WP-10715-2021 State or by respondent no.5. Since order dated 9.5.2017, is not under challenge, therefore, this Court does not deem it fit an appropriate to consider the legality and impropriety of the order dated 9.5.2017.

On considering order dated 14.6.201 contained in Annexure P/8 and note sheets which are placed on record, it is found that complaint against petitioner and his order of deployment was placed before the Collector by District Education Officer on 18.2.2021. Matter was taken up for discussion on 22.2.2021. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat and District Education Officer discussed the matter and made proposal for repatriation of petitioner to parent school and deployment of Vinay Mishra-respondent no.5 on post of Block Resource Coordinator, Janpad Shiksha Kendra Sidhi.

Matter was considered by Collector and Chief Executive Officer and after discussion order was passed to relieve petitioner from post of Block Resource Coordinator Janpad Shiksha Kendra Sidhi and to deploy Vinay Mishra as Block Resource Coordinator, Sidhi on 14.6.2021 Thereafter, District Education Officer has passed impugned order dated 14.6.2021. Since a detailed discussion was done by Collector and Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat on proposal of District Education Officer and thereafter decision was taken by Collector and order is passed by the District Education Officer, therefore, it cannot be said that order 14.6.2021 is without jurisdiction and same has been passed by the District Education Officer. It is not a case that District Education Officer has passed an order thereafter approval of Collector has been taken. In this case, matter was placed before the Collector thereafter Collector and CEO Janpad Shiksha Kendra have taken a decision and after decision of Collector order has been passed by District Education Officer, therefore, no procedural impropriety in passing of the order dated 14.6.2021.

It is within the jurisdiction of Administrative Authority to take a decision that which person is to be sent on deputation as Block Resource Coordinator. This Court will not interfere in administrative province of Signature SAN Not Verified

Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2021.07.16 18:31:05 IST 4 WP-10715-2021 Executive Officer. There is no illegality or procedural impropriety in passing the said order. Petitioner was only appointed temporarily as Block Resource Coordinator on 9.5.2017. Petitioner had already worked on the said post for more than 4 years. Order dated 14.6.2021 does not attach any stigma to petitioner. No departmental action or adverse order is passed affecting rights of petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that order dated 14.6.2021 is malafide in law. Legal malice or malice in law means something which is done without lawful excuse. It is a deliberate act in disregard to the right of others. Action which is taken with an oblique or indirect object contrary to law can be said to be act in malafide in law.

In the present case, there is no procedural impropriety or illegality in order dated 14.6.2021 as discussed above. In view of same, there is no malafide.

Counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent no.1 have relied on the judgments reported in (1974) 4 SCC 3-E.P.Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, (2011) 5 SCC 435-Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India (Alpai) and others Vs. Director General of Civil Aviation and others and (2012) 4 SCC 407- Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector,Raigad and others. Law laid down in the said judgments is settled. For saving of time, the said judgments are not reproduced or discussed for gravity of order.

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE

DUBEY/-

Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
ARVIND KUMAR
DUBEY
Date: 2021.07.16
18:31:05 IST