Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakesh Suryawanshi vs The Chairman on 2 May, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20506
1 WP-15752-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 2 nd OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 15752 of 2025
LAKESH SURYAWANSHI
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Balaji Akhillawar - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs :-
1) Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus by
directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the
representation dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P/4)
submitted by the petitioner within a period of 30
days, in the interest of justice.
2) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the
petitioner along with the cost of the case.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the juniors to the
petitioner have been given the charge of the post of Executive Engineer and he is
not being considered. He preferred a representation to the authorities.
A specific question is raised to the counsel for the petitioner whether he has
challenged the grant of charge to the juniors to the petitioner at any point of time,
he fairly submits that he has not challenged the same. Another question is raised
that what rights are accrued to the petitioner to ask for grant of a particular charge.
He submits that in terms of the circular issued by the State Government vide
Annexure -P/5 dated 25.6.2002 he prays for grant of charge.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20506
2 WP-15752-2025
The fact remains that the charge cannot be claimed as a matter of right in
terms of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana
vs. S.M. Sharma and others reported in AIR 1993 SC 2273 has held as under :-
"9. It is only a posting order in respect of
two officers. With the posting of Ram Niwas
as Executive Engineer Sharma was
automatically relieved of the current duty charge
of the post of Executive Engineer. Sharma was
neither appointed/promoted/posted as Executive
Engineer nor was he ever reverted from the said
post. He was only holding current duty charge of
the post of Executive Engineer. The Chief
Administrator never promoted Sharma to the post
of Executive Engineer and as such the question of
his reversion from the said post did not arise.
Under the circumstances the controversy whether
the powers of the Board to appoint/promote a
person to the post of an Executive Engineer were
delegated to the Chairman or to the Chief
Administrator, is wholly irrelevant.
10. Sharma was given the current duty charge
of the post of Executive Engineer under the orders
of the Chief Administrator and the said charge
was also withdrawn by the same authority. We
have already reproduced above Rule 4(2) of
the General Rules and Rule 13 of the Service
Rules. We are of the view that the Chief
Administrator, in the facts and circumstances of
this case, was within his powers to issue the two
orders dated June 13, 1991 and January 6, 1992.
11. We are constrained to say that the High
Court extended its extra-ordinary 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."
Subsequently, this Court had an occasion to consider the law in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20506
3 WP-15752-2025
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 others).
The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Dulari Mongare
(supra) has considered the issue and held as under:-
"It is clear that the petitioner does not have any
legal, statutory, vested or fundamental right to
occupy the post of Warden on additional charge
basis.''
It is prerogative of the government to grant charge of a particular post to the
concerning employee. If the petitioner is affected by grant of charge to his juniors,
in all fairness, he should assail the order of grant of charge to the juniors. Simply
asking for consideration of representation for grant of change, this petition is
untenable in terms of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in S.M. Sharma and
others (supra).
Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
Petition sans merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
JP
