Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1098 (MP)

Gendalal Dohre v. State of M. P.

2017-10-25

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI

body2017
ORDER 1. With the consent of parties, this petition is disposed of finally. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.6.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 whereby additional charge of Warden of the Junior Schedule Caste Boys Hostel, Bhander has been withdrawn from the petitioner. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that petitioner was holding the charge of Warden of Schedule Caste Excellence Boys Hostel, Bhander. Apart from the above charge, the petitioner was entrusted with the charge of Junior Schedule Caste Boys Hostel, Bhander. By the impugned order dated 16.6.2017, the additional charge of Warden, Junior Schedule Caste Boys Hostel, Bhander was withdrawn from the petitioner and the same has been handed over to respondent No.4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the order whereby additional charge of Warden, Junior Schedule Caste Boys Hostel, Bhander has been withdrawn from the petitioner. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per circular dated 16.3.2015 (Annexure P-3) preference shall be given to the candidates belonging to the schedule caste/schedule tribes whereas respondent No.4 does not belong to the aforesaid caste. Secondly, it is contended that as per circular dated 30.5.2017 (Annexure P-4), no person belonging to the School Education Department can hold the charge in the Tribal Welfare Department. Respondent No.4 belongs to the School Education Department, as such order withdrawing the additional charge from the petitioner is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 has filed the reply and submitted that the petitioner has no right to hold additional charge of Warden which is of temporary nature and there is no violation of any legal or fundamental rights of the petitioner. He contends that petitioner has no right to ask for or stick to the additional charge of Warden. The impugned order does not cause any financial loss or prejudice of any kind to the petitioner. No cause of action arises for invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court as the same amounts to misuse of process of Court. 6. He contends that petitioner has no right to ask for or stick to the additional charge of Warden. The impugned order does not cause any financial loss or prejudice of any kind to the petitioner. No cause of action arises for invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court as the same amounts to misuse of process of Court. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that impugned order withdrawing the charge has been issued in the light of circular dated 7.1.2013 of the State Government whereby it is provided that no person can hold the charge of Warden of more than one hostel. Secondly, it was contended that as per circular, the Warden can not continue at one hostel for more than three years. As per circular dated 16.3.2015 (Annexure P-3), clause-2 provides that the term would be for three years or if it is found that work is good then it can be extended up to five years. In the present case, the petitioner is holding additional charge from 13.6.2008 and as such petitioner has completed 9 years. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of their contention has relied on the judgment, reported in [1993 Supp.(3) SCC 252], State of Haryana v. S.M. Sharma and others. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order the additional charge has been withdrawn. Admittedly, the petitioner has no right to hold the additional charge as soon as respondent No.4 was posted on that post, the petitioner is automatically relieved from the additional charge. The petitioner was neither appointed/ promoted as a Warden, Junior Schedule Caste Boys Hostel, Bhander nor he was reverted from the said post. He was only holding additional charge. The respondents with a view to post one person as a Warden of the Hostel has withdrawn the additional charge from the petitioner. This Court is of the considered view that respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case are within the power to issue the impugned order 16.6.2017 (Annexure P-1) withdrawing the additional charge of Warden, Schedule Caste Junior Boys Hostel, Bhander from the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the instant petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.