Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr.Kalka Prasad Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 January, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.390/2022
(Dr.Kalka Prasad Rajput Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ors)
Jabalpur, Dated: 07.01.2022
Shri Rambhayan Lodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Aditya Khandekar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and
propriety of the order dated 3.12.2021, annexure P/1, passed by
the respondent no.5 whereby charge of the post of Block
Medical Officer, C.H.C. Ajayagarh, District Panna has been
withdrawn from the petitioner and the same has been handed
over to the respondent no.6.
Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are that
the petitioner at present holds the substantive post of Medical
Officer. The petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer vide
order dated 15.10.2012. The petitioner was regularsied w.e.f.
29.9.2015. Since the date of his initial appointment, he is
performing his duties with sincerity and utmost devotion. In
view of the excellent performance and service record, the
respondent no.4 handed over the charge of Block Medical
Officer, Community Health Center, Ajaygarh, District Panna to
the petitioner. Now the respondents by issuing the impugned
order has sought to take charge from the petitioner and handed
over the same to the respondent no.6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
respondent no.6 is much junior to the petitioner and is on
probation, therefore, charge could not be handed over to the
respondent no.6.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State
submitted that the petitioner has no vested right over the
additional charge of Block Medical Officer, which is of
temporary nature. There is no violation of any legal or
fundamental rights of the petitioner. The service condition of
the petitioner is already 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 Medical
Officer. The petitioner was neither appointed/promoted to the
post of Block Medical Officer 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 3.12.2021
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
HEMANT SARAF
HS 2022.01.08 17:25:33 +05'30'
