Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. B.D. Sonwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 November, 2021
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1 WP-6338-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 6338 of 2021
(DR. B.D. SONWANI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 22-11-2021
Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pradeep Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondent
Nos.1 to 5/State.
Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Kaustubh
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.
Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order Annexure P/7 dated
10.3.2021 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Public Health & Family Welfare
Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal whereby petitioner,
who was working as Officiating Chief Medical & Health Officer, Anuppur
was asked to work on his original post of Specialist and in his place private
respondent No.6 Dr.Suresh Chandra was appointed as Officiating Chief
Medical & Health Officer.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly the petitioner was
transferred from Shahdol to Anuppur on the post of Officiating Chief
Medical & Health Officer and he could not have been removed. Secondly,
the charge could not have been given to respondent No.6, who is a Class-II
employee despite the fact that several senior persons are available at
Anuppur. It is also submitted that the reliance has been placed by the learned
Government Advocate for the respondent/State in the case of Dr.V.B.Singh
Baghel versus State of M.P. & Others 2016 (3) MPLJ 152 but in the
said case, the Court has failed to take into consideration the law laid down by
the Supreme Court in the case of E.P.Royappa versus State of Tamil
Nadu & Another (1974) 4 SCC 3, which lays down the law that Article 14
of the Constitution of India gives the right to equality and grants equality
before law or equal protection of law within the territory of India and that
protection of law is available so to strike out arbitrariness from the State
Signature Not Verified
SAN
action to ensure fairness and equality. Placing reliance on Paragraph No.86, it
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2021.11.25 10:13:34 IST
2 WP-6338-2021
is further submitted that since the decision rendered in the case of
E.P.Royappa (supra) has not been considered, therefore, the law laid down
in the case of Dr.V.B.Singh Baghel (supra) is not a good law.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State in his turn
supports the impugned order and submits that there is a specific mention in
the impugned order dated 10.3.2021 that during the assessment meeting
organized through video conferencing so as to assess the situation of Covid-
19 Pandemic, Hon'ble the Chief Minister had found the work of the petitioner
to be not satisfactory and, therefore, as per his directions, temporary charge
of the post of Officiating Chief Medical & Health Officer was taken away
from the petitioner. Placing reliance on the judgment of Dr.V.B.Singh
Baghel (supra), it is submitted that there is no legal, vested, statutory or
constitutional right of the petitioner to continue as Officiating Chief Medical
& Health Officer unless such posting runs contrary to any statutory provision
or infringes any fundamental right or statutory right of an employee, therefore,
no mandamus can be issued.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in his turn submits that the
performance of petitioner was extraordinary and during the first phase of
vaccination, he achieved success of 80.78% in regard to administration of
first dose to Health Care Workers and Front Line Workers whereas during
administration of second dose, petitioner's performance was 91.17% as can
be seen from Annexure P/6.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is evident that Annexure P/6 does not reflect correct statistics infact
against the target of 5286 persons, the progress was 2745, which comes out
to 51.92% and not 91.17% as has been canvassed by the petitioner, therefore,
Annexure P/6 is fraught with incorrectness and does not reflect correct
calculation as has been canvassed by the petitioner. Secondary, as far as the
law down down in the case of E.P.Royappa (supra) is concerned, Article
Signature Not Verified
SAN
14 of the Constitution of India accepts and admits two exceptions, namely,
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2021.11.25 10:13:34 IST
3 WP-6338-2021
though it curbs an arbitrariness but if there is intelligible differentia and rational
nexus then exceptions can be carved out.
In the present case, it is evident from Annexure P/7 that the petitioner
has filed to lead his team to achieve the target of vaccination during the
second phase of Covid-19 Pandemic, which was most crucial and, therefore,
in the video conferencing, Hon'ble the Chief Minister being not satisfied with
the performance of the petitioner had directed for taking away his charge.
Thus, both the aspects of intelligible differentia and rational nexus between
the object and the achievement being available, therefore, it cannot be said
that the law laid down in the case of Dr.V.B.Singh Baghel (supra) will not
be applicable to the facts & circumstances of the case especially when the
whole country was fighting with Covid-19 Pandemic and apparently the
action of petitioner was not in synchronization with the requirement of time.
Thus, when tested on the aspect of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India also then there being an intelligible differentia and rational nexus in the
decision making, therefore, the impugned order cannot be faulted with. As far
as giving charge to a junior person is concerned, it is for the aggrieved person
to complain about this and the petitioner has no locus in this regard and,
therefore, on that ground also, this writ petition is not maintainable.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2021.11.25 10:13:34 IST
