Smt. Amita Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7761 MP

                                  1
 IN     THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                         ON THE 11 th OF MAY, 2023
                    WRIT PETITION No. 11099 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
SMT. AMITA SINGH TOMAR W/O SHRI SANGRAM
SINGH TOMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
TEHSILDAR R/O F-2 COLLECTORATE COLONY NEAR
ZILA PANCHAYTA OFFICE DISTT. SHEOPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                                .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRATIP VISORIYA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN,
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    C O L L E C T O R DISTT    SHEOPUR        (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    SHIVAM VERMA COLLECTOR DISTT SHEOPUR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    ADDITIONAL   COLLECTOR DISTT              SHEOPUR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI G.K. AGARWAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

      Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :

" 1 . That, the order dated 12.04.2023 (Annexure

P/1), 03.02.2023 (Annexure P/2) and 20.02.2023 (Annexure P/5) passed by respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed;

2. That, a direction be given to the respondents to post the petitioner on the post of Tehsildar;

3. That, a suitable departmental enquiry may kindly be ordered for passing unauthorized order;

4. That, any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, with cost of the petition."

I t is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is holding the substantive post of Tehsildar and has been posted in Tehsil Badoda, District Sheopur. Respondent No.2 has passed an order directing the

petitioner to work as Supeintendent of Land Records, Distt. Sheopur. Earlier vide order dated 28.03.2022 the petitioner has been directed to work in the office of District Election Office and one Nayab Tehsildar has been directed to work as Tehsildar. He placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Vice Chancellor, L.N.Mithila Vs. Dayanand Jha reported in AIR 1986 SC 1200 and E.P. Royappa Vs. Sate of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1974 SCC 555, submits that the petitioner being a holder of substantive post of Tehsildar, has a right to work in Tehsil and hence, the order impugned is illegal and contrary to law.

Limited prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner that if respondent No.1 is directed to consider the representation which will be submitted by the petitioner and decide the same within the time bound frame, then grievance of the petitioner would be redressed.

On the other hand, innocuous prayer made by counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by learned Government Advocate.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Looking to the prayer so made by counsel for the petitioner and without commenting on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with all relevant documents within a week's time from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order before the respondent No.1, who shall decide the same by passing a reasoned order within a further period of three weeks in accordance with law.

I t is needless to mention that since this Court has not considered the merits of the case, therefore, the representation shall be decided strictly in accordance with law without getting influenced by this order.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu NEETU SHASHANK 2023.05.12 12:22:33 +05'30'