Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yashwant Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 April, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 18th OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 8104 of 2022
Between:-
YASHWANT SINGH S/O SHRI TEJ BALI SINGH ,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
WORKINGH AS UPPER MIDDLE SCHOOL
GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
GODARU BLOCK GOHAPARU DISTRICT SHAHDOL
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI RAHUL DIWAKAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHEDULED TRIBE
DEVELOPMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COMMISSIONER SCHEDULED TRIBE
D EVELO PM EN T MADHYA PRADESH RAJIV
GANDHI BHAWAN SHYAMLA HILLS BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE COLLECTOR SHAHDOL DISTRICT SHAHDOL
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT
AND SCHEDULED CASTE WELFARE DEPARTMENT
SHAHDOL DIVISION SHAHDOL M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER SCHOOL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SHAHDOL DISTRICT
SHAHDOL M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. MITLESH KUMAR SONI WORKING AS MIDDLE
SCHOOL TEACHER GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL
PAH LWA DISTRICT SHAHDOL M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO, LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE,
FOR THE RESPONDENTS/STATE)
T h is petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
Signature Not Verified
SAN following:
Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL
ORDER
Date: 2022.04.20 16:21:22 IST
In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner
has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 16.11.2021
(Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.4, whereby the charge of the Principal of
Government High School Palwah, Block Gohaparu, District Shahdol has been
handed-over to respondent no.6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Circular dated
21.12.2016 of the State Government, the charge of the Principal can only be given
to a person holding gazetted post; however, admittedly respondent no.6 does not
hold a gazetted post, therefore, order giving charge to respondent no.6 is
absolutely illegal. It is further submitted that as per Policy, the charge of the
Principal of Government High School Palwah, Block Gohaparu, District Shahdol
should be given to the senior most person and the petitioner being the senior most
person, respondent No.6 has no right to hold the charge in place of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order
has been passed to accommodate the respondent No.6. The same is manifestly
illegal, arbitrary and erroneous and therefore, deserves to be quashed or in the
alternative directions may be issued to decide the pending representation.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State
submitted that the petitioner has no vested right over the additional charge of the
Principal of Government High School Palwah, Block Gohaparu, District Shahdol.
There is no violation of any legal or fundamental right of the petitioner. 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. 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.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The impugned order is only an order of giving additional charge to
respondent no.6. Substantive post of the petitioner is Higher Middle School
Signature Not Verified
SAN Teacher. The petitioner was neither appointed/promoted to the post of Principal
Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL
Date: 2022.04.20 16:21:22 IST
nor he was reverted from the said post.
This Court is of the considered view that the respondents are within the
powers to issue the impugned order of additional charge dated 16.11.2021
(Annexure P-1).
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
TG /-
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL
Date: 2022.04.20 16:21:22 IST
