Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Kumar Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.9521/2020
(Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ors)
Jabalpur, Dated: 04.01.2022
Smt.Sudha Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner pleads no
instructions.
Shri Aditya Khandekar, Panel Lawyer for the respondents
no.1 to 3/State.
Shri Upendra Kumar Tripathi, Advocate for the respondent
no.4.
Heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the
record.
In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the
order dated 26.6.2020, annexure P/3, passed by the respondent
no.3 whereby the representation filed by the petitioner has been
rejected. Earlier, the order dated 29.5.2020, annexure P/1 was
challenged in W.P.No.8321/2020 by the petitioner by which
additional charge given to the petitioner was withdrawn and
directed to be handed over to the respondent no.4.
Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition, briefly
stated, are that the petitioner at present holds the substantive post
of Uchcha Madhyamik Shikshak and was incharge Principal of Govt.
Higher Secondary School, Agdal, District Rewa. Vide order dated
29.5.2020, the charge of the Principal was taken over from the
petitioner and was handed over to the respondent no.4, who is
junior to the petitioner, without assigning any reasons. As per the
circular dated 6.2.2008 issued by the respondent no.2 addressed to
all the District Education Officers, M.P. which provides that in
absence of regular posting, the charge is to be given as per the
seniority. The petitioner comes under the category of senior teacher
whereas the respondent no.4 is Headmaster of the Middle School.
Thus, the order dated 29.5.2020 was passed in clear contravention
of the circular dated 6.2.2008. The respondents have exceeded in
its jurisdiction by superseding the order passed by the State Govt.,
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
Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Agdal, District Rewa,
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. Substantive post of the petitioner is Uchcha
Madhyamik Shikshak. The petitioner was neither
appointed/promoted to the post of Principal, Govt. Higher
Secondary School, Agdal 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 26.6.2020
withdrawing the 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
HS
HEMANT SARAF
2022.01.05 18:09:56 +05'30'
