Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Sandhya Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1541
1 WP-1001-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1001 of 2025
DR. SANDHYA JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Manav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents No.1 & 2.
Shri L. C. Patne, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
Ms. Pranjali Yajurvedi, learned counsel for the respondent
[CAVEAT].
ORDER
The petitioner is challenging the order dated 08.01.2025 by which the
respondent No.3 has been given the charge of Incharge Principal, Govt.
Autonomous College of Dentistry, Indore. The order is challenged on the
ground that the respondent No.3 is junior to the petitioner. The petitioner was
holding the charge of the post of Incharge Principal of Govt. Autonomous
College of Dentistry since September 2023, however, without assigning any
reason by a non-speaking order, the charge of the said post has been given to
the respondent No.3.
02. The facts draped in brevity are that the petitioner was appointed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1541
2 WP-1001-2025
initially as Lecturer, later on he was promoted as Assistant Professor and
thereafter was promoted as Professor in the year 2007. It is further stated that
the respondent No.3 was initially appointed as Resident in Dentistry, Govt.
Dental College, Indore. At the time of her appointment, she was only
Bachelor Degree though as per the Rule, the master degree is essential
qualification. Thus, her appointment was contrary to the Rules. When Dr.
Deshraj Jain, who was holding the charge of the Principal of the College
superannuated, the petitioner was given the charge of the said post by order
dated 15.09.2023. Since then the petitioner was working as Incharge
Principal. Thus, the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 given the charge to a
junior person/respondent No.3 is illegal and is liable to be quashed and the
petitioner be given the charge of the said post till the regular appointment is
made on the post of Principal of the College. In support of his submission
counsel for the petitioner relied on the Circular dated 18.08.2015 and also the
Circular dated 22.07.2004 issued by the Public Works Department in which
it is observed that the current charge should not be handed over to an
employee who is facing an enquiry by Lokayukt, EOW, C.T. or any
vigilance department of the State Govt. or who has been found to be prima
facie guilty in financial irregularities. He relied on the judgment passed in the
case of Shivaji University vs. Sangameshwar (2000) 9 SCC 401 . He further
relied on the judgment passed in the case of Anand Selot vs. Chief Secretary,
State of M.P. ILR 2010 M.P. 1357 in which it is observed in para-10 that as
per the Circular Annexure R/1, the current charge of a post has to be handed
over to the person who is senior most in the department. Against whom no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1541
3 WP-1001-2025
criminal case, departmental enquiry, vigilance case or enquiry by Lokayukt
is pending. It is further argued that the impugned order is a non-speaking
order. He further urged that the principal of the college writes ACRs of the
persons who are working on the post of Professor and, therefore, the
respondent No.3 who is junior to him will write the ACRs of the petitioner
which would be prejudiced to him. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to
be quashed and the current charge of the post in question be given to the
petitioner.
03. Per contra counsel for the State argued that the petitioner has no
right to claim the charge of the Principal Govt. Autonomous College of
Dentistry and the impugned order is passed on administrative exigency. It is
submitted that the husband of the petitioner was working as Principal of the
College and he demitted the office on attaining the age of superannuation of
65 years on 31.08.2023. The substantive post of the petitioner is that of
Professor Orthodontia in the college of Dentistry, Indore. On demitting the
office of Principal of the College by her husband Dr. Deshraj Jain,
considering her seniority she was initially entrusted with the charge of the
said post of Principal, Government Autonomous College of Dentistry by her
husband Dr. Deshraj Jain himself, thereafter the charge of the said post was
given to the petitioner by the State Govt. by order dated 15.09.2023. In view
of subsequent initiation of an enquiry against her husband as Principal of the
said College and non-cooperation by the petitioner and making efforts to
cover the lapses of her husband, the impugned order has been passed.
04. It is urged by the counsel for the State that the impugned order has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1541
4 WP-1001-2025
been issued by the Respondent No. 1 in order to ensure fairness in the
administration and in the interest of general public. It is relevant to mention
here that husband of the petitioner -- Dr. Deshraj Jain while serving as
Principal, Government College of Dentistry, Indore had committed several
financial and other irregularities by misusing his official position as
Principal. Amongst the several complaints made against him, one of the
complaints lodged by one Shri Anand Kumar residence of Pipriya Kalan,
Tehsil Bahri, District Katni was enquired into tentatively by the
Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore, who has prepared an enquiry report
holding him prima facie guilty and vide his letter dated 9.3.2024 forwarded
the proposal for taking disciplinary action against the husband of the
petitioner - Dr. Deshraj Jain. Office of Respondent No. 2 wrote a letter dated
4.11.2024 to the Principal, Government College of Dentistry to make the
enquiry report prepared by the Divisional Commissioner in the matter and
the copy of reservation roster within 3 working days available. In response
thereto, no enquiry report was furnished to the office of Respondent No. 2 by
the petitioner and what was submitted is only a typed copy of
unauthenticated roster alleged to be applicable in the Government College of
Dentistry, Indore. Not only this, in the 35th meeting of General Body of
Madhya Pradesh State Dental Council held on 23.10.2024 at Indore, it was
deliberated at Agenda No. 14 in respect of decisions taken from the year
2018 to the year 2024 by the then President Dr. Deshraj Jain as to in what
capacity he had functioned during the aforesaid period as President of M.P.
State Dental Council that too without any sanction or permission from the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1541
5 WP-1001-2025
competent authority of the State Government. However, as the aforesaid
information was not being provided to the Council by the petitioner's
husband and complete non-cooperation was being shown by him, a 4-
member committee was constituted by the Council to probe into the financial
irregularities committed by the earlier President of the Council i.e. Dr.
Deshraj Jain. The petitioner has objected to the said action of the Council in
probing into the irregularities committed by her husband by writing a letter
dated 5.11.2024 addressed to the Registrar, M.P. State Dental Council in her
capacity of ex-officio member of the Council by virtue of her being working
on the post of Principal, Government College of Dentistry. She even went on
to question the authority of the committee to probe into these irregularities
committed by her husband which was repelled by the Council in its General
Body Meeting on 23.10.2024.
05. Similarly, in the 41% meeting of Executive Body of M.P. State
Dental Council held on 23.10.2024, the proposal for holding enquiry into the
illegalities committed by the petitioner's husband Dr. Deshraj Jain was
approved and that the aforesaid committee was directed to submit its report
within a period of 15 days. The said enquiry is still going on which could not
be completed on account of complete non-cooperation from the petitioner
and the petitioner is ensuring being the member of the Council by virtue of
her being Principal of Government College of Dentistry, Indore the same
does not come to a logical end.
0 6 . Counsel for the respondents further submitted that every time
information is sought from the petitioner as Principal of Government College
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1541
6 WP-1001-2025
of Dentistry with regard to the irregularities committed by her husband Dr.
Deshraj Jain as Principal of Government College of Dentistry, Indore, these
informations are not being supplied to the answering Respondents and a
complete non-cooperation is exhibited. As a result of which, in order to
ensure that a fair and transparent enquiry be conducted and concluded which
requires cooperation from the office of Principal, Government College of
Dentistry, Indore that the impugned order has been passed by the Respondent
No. 1. Several complaints have been received from various stake holders
against the petitioner about her inefficiency and incapability in the routine
administration of the Government College of Dentistry, Indore so much so
that the State Government had to face embarrassment in Vidhan Sabha
during the session in the month of December, 2024 on account of inertia and
lethargy on the part of the petitioner in not maintaining the routine
administration of the College of Dentistry. It is relevant to mention here that
the sword of de-recognition over as many as 3 to 5 MDS seats in Oral and
Maxillofacial Surgery, 2 to 5 seats in the specialty of Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopedics and about 3 to 5 seats in the specialty of
Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge is hanging on the College of Dentistry,
Indore. Further the petitioner as a Principal and Administrator of
Government College of Dentistry has miserably failed to maintain even
general hygiene measures which irked Dental Council of India to report that
the general hygiene measures need remarkable improvements. Moreover, the
petitioner has also failed miserably to ensure even the basic sterilization
protocol is followed as per standard guidelines. No effective control over
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1541
7 WP-1001-2025
faculty was made by the petitioner in as much as several faculties have not
furnished publication for 15 points as per DCI Guidelines for last 3 years.
Disposal of Biomedical Waste was also found lagging. The petitioner as
Principal has also not formed new ethical committee though, its registration
stood expired long back. Copies of the inspection reports prepared by the
Dental Council of India against Government College of Dentistry, Indore
have been filed as Annexure R/10 with reply and copy of question and
answer raised in Vidhan Sabha in respect of derecognition of MDS seats in
various specialties have been filed as Annexure R/11. Thus, it is quite
evident from the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the petitioner is
leaving no stone unturned in hiding the delinquency of her husband Dr.
Deshraj Jain while misusing her official position as Principal, Government
College of Dentistry and that on account of mismanagement and lack of
administrative control that the Government College of Dentistry is about to
lose precious MDS seats for the upcoming academic session 2025-26 and
which caused serious embarrassment to the Government on the floor of
Vidhan Sabha.
07. Counsel for the State in addition to the aforesaid argued that a PIL
was filed at Principal Bench at Jabalpur seeking a direction to take action on
the basis of the enquiry report and recommendation dated 09.03.2024 which
is Annexure R/3. He has produced a copy of the order dated 20.01.2025
passed by the Division Bench in PIL WP No.39169/2024 (Anand Kumar Vs.
State of MP & Ors). The said petition has been disposed off by the Division
Bench directing the respondents to take action pursuant to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1541
8 WP-1001-2025
communication dated 09.03.2024 against erring person within 4 weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is argued that the action has also to
be taken against the husband of the petitioner as per the order passed in the
PIL by Division Bench in pursuant to the communication dated 09.03.2024.
08. Counsel for the State vehemently argued that from the aforesaid
facts and documents, it is pellucid that the petitioner is creating hindrance in
the enquiry proposed against the husband of the petitioner. She did not
forward the enquiry report along with the letter Annexure R/6. She is making
all endeavour to cover the lapses of her husband, therefore, for the
administrative exigency, the charge of the post of Principal of the College
has been given to the respondent No.3. In support of his submissions, he has
relied on the judgments passed in the case of Dr. V.B. Singh Baghel vs. State
of M.P. & Ors. 2016 (3) MPLJ 152, State of Haryana vs. S.M. Sharma &
Ors. 1993 Supp (3) SCC 252, R.K. Jain vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (W.A.
No.501/2020, decided on 13.05.2020), Shri Kumar Soni vs. State of M.P. &
Ors. (W.P. No.16439/2016, decided on 24.10.2016), Ganga Singh Goutam
vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (W.P. No.13433/2017, decided on 06.08.2018), Dr.
Ravikant Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (W.P. No.27561/2019,
decided on 20.01.2020) and Dr. S.K. Saral vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (W.A.
No.493/2021, decided on 04.06.2021).
09. It is further argued that the apprehension of the petitioner that the
ACRs will be written by the respondent No.3 is without any basis. Counsel
for the State produced copy of the Circular dated 04.08.1980 by GAD in
which it has been provided that in case if the current charges given to an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1541
9 WP-1001-2025
employee, he shall not write the ACRs of the employees who are holding the
substantive post of his equivalent cadre of such person. Thus, the
apprehension of the petitioner that the ACRs will be written by respondent
No.3 has no basis.
10. Counsel for the respondent No.3 supported the order and adopted
the arguemnts advanced by counsel for the State.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the record, this Court finds that the petitioner has no right to claim the charge
of the post of Principal in view of the administrative exigency shown by the
respondent/State. In the case of S.M. Sharma (supra), wherein the Apex
Court has considered right of an employee to hold the current charge of
another post. In para-12 of the said judgment, it is held as under:-
"12. We are constrained to say that the High Court
extended its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India to a frivolity. No one has a
right to ask for or stick to a current duty charge. The
impugned order did not cause any financial loss or
prejudice of any kind to Sharma. He had no cause of
action whatsoever to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the
High Court. It was a patent misuse of the process of the
court."
12. The aforesaid judgment has been referred by the Division Bench
in the case of Dr. V.B. Singh Baghel (supra) and also in the subsequent
judgments. The respondents have justified their action of giving charge to the
respondent No.3 instead of petitioner showing administrative exigency that
the husband of the petitioner who was earlier working as Principal of the
same College is facing an enquiry and the petitioner having the charge of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1541
10 WP-1001-2025
Principal is not supplying the necessary information to the respondents and
trying to cover the alleged lapses by her husband.
13. In view of the enquiry contemplated by the respondents against
husband of the petitioner who was working prior to the petitioner on the post
of Principal, it has been found by the State not desirable in fair
administration to continue the charge of the post of Principal of College with
the petitioner. The impugned order of giving current charge to the respondent
No.3 is not an order of punishment and it is purely an administrative order.
Considering the facts and material filed by the respondents/State, this Court
is of the view that the impugned order of giving charge of Principal of the
College for administrative exigency and the order impugned cannot be held
to be arbitrary, unreasonable and the respondents have justified the order of
giving charge of the post of Principal. For administrative reasons, the current
charge of the post can be given to a junior person. In view of the arguments
of the counsel for the State, it is directed that the respondent No.3 shall not
write the ACR of the petitioner.
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
soumya
