Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Kumar Pateriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13271
1 WP-41905-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 41905 of 2024
RAJESH KUMAR PATERIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal - Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Singh
Thakur - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prabhanshu Shukla - GA for the respondents / State.
Shri Rakesh Pandey - Advocate with Shri Abhay Kumar Shukla -
Advocate for the respondent no. 5.
ORDER
The present petition is filed assailing the order dated 24.12.2024
passed by respondent no. 1 whereby respondent no. 5 has been posted on
deputation on the post of District Project Coordinator (DPC), Zila Shiksha
Kendra, Niwari which is already occupied by the petitioner on deputation
since 11.9.2023.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he holds the substantive post of
Headmaster Middle School in the School Education Department of the State
Government. As the regular DPC for promotion to the higher post is not
being held in the State for quite some time, the petitioner after consideration
for grant of charge of higher post was entrusted the charge of Lecturer vide
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13271
2 WP-41905-2024
order dated 19.7.2023. The said order was issued under the signatures of the
Commissioner, Public Instructions. On 11.9.2023 the respondent no. 4
posted the petitioner at DPC, Zila Shiksha Kendra, Niwari and since then the
petitioner is working on the post of DPC, Zila Shiksha Kendra, Niwari with
full honesty and sincerity. There is no complaint against the working of the
petitioner. A complaint was made by a local politician to respondent no. 2
on 27.9.2024 and it was also circulated through WhatsApp messages to
malign the image of the petitioner in the society. When no action was taken
by the authorities on the said complaint, a news item was got published in a
local newspaper containing false allegation against the petitioner. The
petitioner was asked to submit reply to the said complaint. The petitioner
duly filed his reply denying all the allegations made against him.
3. It is pointed out that his case was considered for giving the charge
of Lecturer after holding the DPC as no promotion drive was taken up by
the State Government for a long time. The allegations made against the
petitioner in the complaint were enquired by the authorities and the report in
this regard is produced before this Court pointing out the fact that the
allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint are found to be false
and frivolous. Although the petitioner was placed under suspension but after
the inquiry, the services of the petitioner were restored. The allegation of
remaining absent from duty was found to be baseless. Thereafter, all of a
sudden, impugned order has been passed.
4. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that the advertisement, in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13271
3 WP-41905-2024
pursuance to which, private respondent no. 5 has been posted in place of the
petitioner was issued on 28.2.2024 with respect to only 13 districts. The
petitioner was already occupying the post at Niwari. It was clearly
mentioned in the advertisement that just to fill up the vacant posts in 13
districts, the advertisement was issued, therefore, there was no occasion for
the authorities to post the private respondent in place of petitioner. It is
argued that as the petitioner was fulfilling all the requirements to hold the
post of BRCC at district Niwari, he has been considered and granted higher
charge of Lecturer by the State Government which is reflected from the
document Annexure-P/2 . Even otherwise, as there was no vacancy
available at Niwari, the appointment of respondent no. 5 in pursuance to the
advertisement could not have been done at Niwari, therefore, this petition has
been filed.
5. On notice being issued, reply was filed by the authorities denying
all the averments. It is argued that it was only a charge which was granted to
the petitioner and the same was taken away from the petitioner by posting a
regular incumbent. The respondent no. 5 had participated in the recruitment
drive in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 28.2.2024. The select list
was prepared and name of respondent no. 5 was appearing in the select list.
The relevant clause of advertisement shows that the validity of the select list
is for 3 years and during these 3 years period, if the post of District Project
Officer becomes vacant, then from the list of selected candidates, posting
orders can be issued. It is argued by the State counsel that the advertisement
is not only confined to 13 districts. It is mentioned in the advertisement itself
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13271
4 WP-41905-2024
that as and when the post of District Project Coordinator becomes vacant,
then the candidate can be selected and posted on the vacant post from the list
of selected candidates. Even otherwise, it was only a charge which was taken
away from the petitioner and he has been sent back on his substantive post,
therefore, no illegality has been committed by the authorities. The
substantive post of the petitioner is that of Headmaster Middle School and
the qualification to hold the post of District Project Coordinator is Lecturer
and the petitioner is having minimum qualification to hold the post of
District Project Coordinator. Respondent no. 5 duly participated in the
recruitment drive and was declared successful. He secured 65 marks
consisting of 46.5 marks towards the written test and 18.5 marks towards the
interview. His services were also assigned to the Rajya Shiksha Kendra on
the basis of deputation for the post of District Project Coordinator, District
Niwari vide order dated 24.12.2024 and he joined on the said post on
26.12.2024. The petitioner was only having the temporary charge, therefore,
under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. In
terms of the settled laws with respect to holding the current charge that a
person holding the current charge is not having any substantive right, no
relief can be extended. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by
Supreme Court in the case State of Haryana vs. S.M. Sharma and others
reported in AIR 1993 SC 2273 and this Court had an occasion to consider
the law in the case of Dr. V.B. Baghel vs. State of M.P. and others reported
in 2016 (3) MPLJ 152 and the order dated 31.10.2022 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.23225 of 2022 (Smt. Dulari Mongare vs. State of M.P. and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13271
5 WP-41905-2024
others) and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 has adopted the
arguments of the State Counsel and in addition has submitted that he has
already joined at the substantive place on 26.12.2024 at Niwari. It is further
pointed out that the petitioner is not having qualification to hold the post of
District Project Coordinator as his substantive post is that of Headmaster,
Middle School. Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to him
and he too prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The only question which comes up for consideration before this
Court is that whether the petitioner is entitled to hold the post of DPC at
District Niwari. It is an admitted position that vide Annexure-P/2 the
petitioner's case was considered by the DPC and he was granted the charge
of higher post of Lecturer and he was posted at Niwari owing to the fact that
the promotion drive could not be taken up by the Government for a long
time. The substantive post of the petitioner is that of Headmaster. However,
he is working on the post of Lecturer in pursuance to the order Annexure-
P/2. The record further indicates that the advertisement vide Annexure-P/8
was issued for 13 districts. The State counsel has placed before this Court a
document dated 28.2.2024 to show the names of 13 districts, for which, the
advertisement was issued. The 13 districts are Ratlam, Mandsaur, Neemuch,
Agar Malwa, Dhar, Khargone, Badwani, Alirajpur, Burhanpur, Sehore,
Harda, Mandla and Anuppur. Admittedly, District Niwari is not included in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13271
6 WP-41905-2024
these 13 districts. The language used in the advertisement dated 28.2.2024 is
as under :-
"सम िश ा अिभयान िमशन अंतगत 13 जल म र
जला प रयोजना सम वयक के पद पर ितिनयु पर
आने के इ छुक कूल िश ा वभाग के सहायक
संचालक/ ाचाय उ.मा. व./हाई कूल संवग
/ या याताओं के आवेदन प आमं त कये जाते है ।
जला प रयोजना सम वयक के पद पर पद थापना
म. . के कसी भी जले म क जा सकती है । उपरो
अिधका रय को अपना आवेदन प रा य िश ा के
म तुत करना होगा। आवेदन प तुत करने क
अंितम ितिथ 07.03.2024 िनधा रत है । िनधा रत समय
सीमा के प ात ् ा आवेदन प पर वचार नह कया
जायेगा।"
9. A bare reading of the aforesaid it is apparently clear that the
advertisement was issued for appointment on the post of District Project
Officer for the aforesaid 13 districts only. The applications were invited and
the last date for submission of application form was 7.3.2024. The
arguments advanced by the State counsel is that the relevant clause of
advertisement get them entitled to make appointment in any districts of the
State of Madhya Pradesh where the post of District Project Officer is lying
vacant. The relevant clause on which he placed reliance is as under :-
"मे रट सूची क वै ता अिधकतम तीन वष रहे गी।मेर ट
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13271
7 WP-41905-2024
सूची क वै ता समाि के पूव य द कसी जले म
जला प रयोजना सम वयक का पद र होगा तो इसी
ती ा सूची से जला प रयोजना सम वयक के पद क
पूित क जावेगी।
10. From perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is seen that the validity of
the merit list was for 3 years and if during these 3 years period, if the post of
District Project Officer falls vacant, then the same will be filled up from the
list of selected candidates as the validity of select list is only for 3 years. The
arguments advanced by the State counsel is not attractive for the reason that
the advertisement itself was issued only for 13 districts wherein the posts
were vacant. Admittedly, district Niwari was not included in these 13
districts. Secondly, the post at Niwari was not vacant as the petitioner was
already working on the post of District Project Coordinator although as In-
charge. Therefore, the argument of the State Counsel as well as respondent
no. 5 that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 28.2.2024, respondent no.
5 has been posted in place of the petitioner does not appear to be correct.
Respondent no. 5 could have been considered for posting as District Project
Officer anywhere amongst these 13 districts if the post falls vacant within 3
years from the date of issuance of select list. As admittedly district Niwari
was not included in these 13 districts in the advertisement, the case of the
respondent no. 5 could not have been considered for posting as District
Project Coordinator at Niwari where the petitioner was already occupying the
said post.
11. This Court is aware of the fact that for holding the post on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13271
8 WP-41905-2024
basis of charge, no substantive rights are created in favour of the employee.
However, the fact remains that the said analogy will not be applicable in the
present case because the advertisement on the basis of which the charge has
been given to respondent no. 5 in place of the petitioner was issued for only
13 districts, in which, district Niwari was not included in the list.
12. As far as the arguments with respect to the fact that the petitioner
is not having qualification to hold the post in question is concerned, it is
reflected from the document Annexure-P/2 that owing to the fact that the
promotion was not carried out in the State of Madhya Pradesh since long,
therefore, the State Government considered the case of the petitioner along
with other incumbents for granting the charge of higher post and he was
selected as Lecturer on 19.7.2023. Under these circumstances, it can safely
be said that the petitioner was working as Lecturer can be considered for the
post of District Project Coordinator. On both counts, the order impugned
passed by the authorities is unsustainable.
13. Under these circumstances, the petition is allowed and the
impugned order taking away the charge from the petitioner and handing over
it to respondent no. 5 is unsustainable, it is hereby quashed. Respondents are
directed to permit the petitioner to work as District Project Officer at Zila
Shiksha Kendra Niwari with immediate effect.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13271
9 WP-41905-2024
JP
