Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Swatantra Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 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 2nd OF FEBRUARY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 2722 of 2022
Between:-
DR. SWATANTRA PATEL S/O DR. S.B.PATEL ,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BLOCK MEDICAL OFFICER AT COMMUNITY
HEALTH CENTER SIHAWAL DISTRICT SIDHI
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR VERMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH SERVICES VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF
HEALTH SERVICES, M.P. M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. COMMISSIONER HEALTH SERVICES, BHOPAL
BHOPAL, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER
DISTRICT SIDHI DISTRICT SIDHI, M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DR. RIKESH SHARMA S/O SHRI PUSHPRAJ
SHARMA , AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: WORKING AS BLOCK
MEDICAL OFFICER (P.G.), AT COMMUNITY
HEALTH CENTRA, SIHAWAL DISTRICT SIDHI,
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GULAB KALI PATEL, GOVT.ADV. FOR STATE)
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
T h e petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.1.2022
(Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent no.2; whereby the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
SAN
has been directed to hand over the charge of Block Medical Officer at
Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL
Date: 2022.02.03 17:56:36 IST
Community Health Centre, Sihawal, District Sidhi to one Dr.Rikesh
Sharma (respondent no.5), without assigning any reasons.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither there was
administrative exigency or urgency to remove the petitioner from the
additional charge nor any complaint has been filed against the
petitioner. The petitioner is performing his duties honestly and
sincerely. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the
petitioner has no vested right over the additional charge of Block
Medical Officer at Community Health Centre, Sihawal, District Sidhi,
which is of temporary nature. There is no violation of any legal or
fundamental right of the petitioner. The service of the petitioner is
also not changed by withdrawing the additional charge. He 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 learned counsel for the State has relied upon the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs.S.M.Sharma
and others, reported in 1993 SCC Supp (3) 252.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The impugned order is only an order withdrawing the additional
charge. The petitioner was neither appointed/promoted to the post of
Block Medical Officer at Community Health Centre, Sihawal,
District Sidhi nor he was reverted from the said post. He was only
holding the additional charge, which has been withdrawn.
This Court is of the considered view that the respondents are
within the powers to issue the impugned order withdrawing the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL
Date: 2022.02.03 17:56:36 IST
additional charge from the petitioner.
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: 2022.02.03 17:56:36 IST
