Dr. B.D.Sonwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1888 MP

                        1 W.A. No.1182/2021




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH AT
                        JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
                               &
  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV


                WRIT APPEAL No. 1182 of 2021


        Between:-

        Dr. B.D. SONWANI, S/o LATE SHRI A.D.
        SONWANI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, IN-
        CHARGE CHIEF MEDICAL & HEALTH
        OFFICER, ANUPPUR, DISTRICT ANUPPUR
        (MADHYA PRADESH).

                                               .....APPELLANT

        (BY SHRI K.C. GHILDIYAL, ADVOCATE)

                             AND

   1.   STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
        THE         PRINCIPAL     SECRETARY,
        DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH &
        FAMILY WELFARE, VALLABH BHAWAN,
        BHOPAL (M.P).
   2.   THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
        MADHYA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF
        PUBLIC HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE,
        VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P).
   3.   THE        COMMISSIONER,     HEALTH
        SERVICES, MADHYA PRADESH, BHOPAL
        (M.P).
   4.   THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HEALTH
        MISSION, BHOPAL (M.P.).
   5.   THE COLLECTOR DISTRICT ANUPPUR
        (M.P.).
   6.   Dr.     SURESH   CHANDRA,   MEDICAL
        OFFICER, DISTRICT HOSPITAL ANUPPUR
        DISTRICT ANUPPUR (M.P.)
                                         ....RESPONDENTS
                                           2 W.A. No.1182/2021




       (BY SHRI A.P. SINGH, DY. ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SHRI
       MUKUND CHOURASIYA, P.L. FOR RESPONDENT Nos. 1 TO 5,
       SHRI RAJWARDHAN SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
       No.6)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Reserved on                   :         01.12.2021

        Passed on                     :         10.02.2022

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per :          Sheel Nagu, J.:

                                    JUDGMENT

This intra-Court appeal preferred u/S.2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the final order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge while exercising writ jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution dismissing Writ Petition No.6338/2021 by which challenge was made by petitioner/appellant to the order dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure-P/7) by which petitioner/appellant who substantively holds the post of Medical Officer was divested of the officiating charge of the post of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Anuppur on the ground of his services being found unsatisfactory and by the same order, the said officiating charge was conferred upon the respondent No.6 herein.

2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.

3. Learned counsel for appellant/petitioner relying upon the celebrated case of E. P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, 1974 (4) SCC 3 contends that if an order of transfer divesting officiating charge of a particular post is tainted with mala fide or bereft of jurisdiction, then the same becomes arbitrary, capricious and violative the of equality clause under Article 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, deserves to be interfered with.

4. The writ Court while passing the impugned order has taken into account the falling standards in the discharge of duties by petitioner/appellant while functioning as In-charge Chief Medical & Health Officer Anuppur and, therefore,

declined interference. Learned Single Judge has also declined to interfere with the reason shown by the employer that the petitioner/appellant was found wanting as a front line worker (Doctor) during the peak period of second wave of Covid 19 Pandemic.

5. This Court sees no reason to take a different view than the one taken by learned Single Judge especially in the backdrop of the settled law that no civil post holder has any vested right to hold a particular post on officiating/in-charge basis and, therefore, in the absence of any right, the question of breach of a non- existing right does not arise.

6. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of E. P. Royappa (supra) is of no assistance to petitioner/appellant since the factual matrix therein related to transfer of an All India Service Officer from a cadre post to a non-cadre post.

7. Consequently, the present writ appeal does not merit consideration and, therefore, stands dismissed. No cost.

          (SHEEL NAGU)                          (PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
            JUDGE                                        JUDGE
Biswal



         Digitally signed by SHIBA NARAYAN
         BISWAL
         Date: 2022.02.11 10:25:32 +05'30'