Pramod Kumar Upgade vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 827 MP

                                           1




     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
                                    JABALPUR


1.     Case Number                 W.P. No.28816/2021
2.     Parties Name                Pramod Kumar Upgade and others Vs. State
                                   of Madhya Pradesh and others
3.     Date of Order               18/01/2022
4.     Bench Constituted of        Hon. Shri Justice S.A.Dharmadhikari
5.     Order passed by             Hon. Shri Justice S.A.Dharmadhikari
6.     Whether approved for        No
       reporting
7.     Name of the counsel for Shri Ramashankar Yadav, Advocate for the
       the parties             petitioners.
                               Shri Manish Kholia, Panel Lawyer for the
                               respondent/State.
8.     Law laid down &             -
       Significant paragraphs
       number



                                     ORDER

(18.01.2022)

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has

assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 02.08.2019 (Annex-

ure P-5) issued by the respondent No. 3 whereby the powers of the Nayab Tehsil-

dar conferred under Section 24(1) of Madhya Pradesh Revenue Code on the peti-

tioner have been withdrawn.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner was serv-

ing as Revenue Inspector w.e.f. 01.04.2001 in the office of Collector, Chhindwara.

The respondent No. 2 issued a circular dated 12.05.2016 under Section 24(1) of

the MPLRC extending the powers of Nayab Tehsildar on the petitioner.

3. The petitioner performed the powers of the Nayab Tehsildar till 01.08.2019

at various places. But vide impugned order dated 02.08.2019 (annexure P-5), the

powers conferred on the petitioner to exercise the powers of Nayab Tehsildar,

were withdrawn.

4. The petitioner has challenged the order of withdrawal of the powers in the

present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respon-

dent is absolutely arbitrary and illegal since the respondents themselves had given

the powers of Nayab Tehsildar. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for with-

drawal of such powers as such the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on various interim orders

passed by this Court where the effect and operation of such orders, withdrawing

the powers, have been stayed. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner sub-

mits that to maintain parity, same interim order may be passed.

7. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposed

the prayer and submitted that the petitioner has no vested right over the additional

charge of Nayab Tehsildar which is purely of temporary nature as is evident from

the order dated 12.05.2016. There is no violation of any legal and fundamental

right of the petitioner. The powers were extended by the State Government in ex-

ercise of power under Section 24(1) of the MPLRC. The impugned order does not

cause any financial loss or prejudice of any kind to the petitioner. In support of

contention the learned counsel for the State has relied on the judgment of the

Apex Court in the Case of State of Haryana vs. S.M. Sharma & others 1993

SCC Supl. (3) 252.

8. Admittedly, powers of Nayab Tehsildar were conferred in exercise of pow-

ers of under Section 24(1) of the MPLRC. The State Government has authority to

confer the powers of Nayab Tehsildar as well as to withdraw the same as per the

Administrative exigency. The substantive post of the petitioner is Revenue Inspec-

tor. The petitioner was neither promoted on the post of Nayab Tehsildar nor he has

been reverted from the said post. He was only exercising the additional powers of

Nayab Tehsildar which have been withdrawn vide the impugned order.

9. This Court is of the considered view that the respondents are within the

powers to issue the impugned order dated 02.08.2019 (P-5) and the petitioners

have no vested right to continue on the post of Nayab Tehsildar.

10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to exercise the extra-ordi-

nary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

11. Accordingly, the instant petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge

R

Digitally signed by ROSHNI SINGH

ROSHNI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=44dcd645178746f6d63e42a2e42bf 251d80050c5e30ae666df37b95eb95d7a5b,

SINGH pseudonym=3D150EAB7F53024775ACCE8E 55B4029A60F2A370, serialNumber=C39575C46537E7B536BA061 AE91B6B57966F2AFA7145BD49DBB4B98FE 127B810, cn=ROSHNI SINGH Date: 2022.01.18 17:45:50 +05'30'