Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 427 (MP)

Virendra Singh Raghuwanshi v. State of M. P.

2019-06-20

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2019
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the allotment of work on the ground that the same is in violation of the departmental circular, Annexure P/3, because the petitioner is a senior doctor and has prayed the following reliefs : "(i) That, respondents may kindly be directed taking the qualification of petitioner being the specialist be not engaged in duties of OPD and long duties as assigned in the impugned order and the whole action of the respondents be declare arbitrary and illegal. (ii) That, the representation pending with the respondents be directed to be decided within a reasonable period extending the similar relief. (iii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, with cost of the petition." 2. It is the case of the petitioner that since he is Specialist and a senior doctor, therefore, his services should be utilized in the light of circular (Annexure P-3) only. The petitioner has drawn the attention of the authorities by representing that the services of the petitioner/Specialist should not be utilized for OPD and engaging him in long duties is not just and proper, however, the said representation has not been decided so far. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is the stand of the petitioner that the respondents had issued a circular in the year 1993 and he is not being assigned the duties as per the said circular. 5. So far as assignment of duties is concerned, it is an administrative work of the head of the department. The circular on which reliance has been placed was issued in the year 1993. The head of the department has to depute the doctors as per their requirement and availability. This Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the administrative work of the respondents. This Court cannot direct the respondents that whether the particular Doctor should be assigned any particular duties or not. The circular of the year 1993 was issued considering the strength of the Doctors working in the government hospitals at the relevant time. The same cannot be made applicable in the year 2019. Furthermore, the circular of the year 1993 is merely an executive instruction and the same is not enforceable by law. The circular of the year 1993 was issued considering the strength of the Doctors working in the government hospitals at the relevant time. The same cannot be made applicable in the year 2019. Furthermore, the circular of the year 1993 is merely an executive instruction and the same is not enforceable by law. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference can be made in the present case. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.