Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiv Singh Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 October, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 W.P.No.26340/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 12th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 26340 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHIV SINGH BAGHEL S/O SHRI BABU
LAL BAGHEL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SUB ENGINEER
WORKING AS-INCHARGE SUB
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RURAL
ENGINEERING SERVICE, POSTED-SUB-
DIVISION, AMARWARA TEHSIL
AMARWARA DISTRICT CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI V.D.S.CHAUHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
VALLABH BHAWAN, DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. JILA PANCHAYAT DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA THROUGH ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JILA
PANCHAYAT, CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RURAL
ENGINEERING SERVICE DIVISION
CHHINDWARA DISTRICT
2 W.P.No.26340/2023
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. SHRI LAL SINGH MARAVI SUB
ENGINEER IN CHARGE RURAL
ENGINEERING SERVICE SUB
DIVISION AMARWARA DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SWATI ASEEM GEORGE - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"i. Issue a writ nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 04/10/2023 passed by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-P/4 in the interest of justice.
II. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit."
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that by the present petition, he is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 04.10.2023 passed by CEO, Jila Panchayat, Chhindwara by which the petitioner, who was holding the current charge of Rural Engineering Services, Sub-Division Amarwara, has been attached in Rural Engineering Services, Division No.-I, Chhindwara.
3 W.P.No.26340/20233. It is submitted that the order of transfer of petitioner is bad because it has been issued by an incompetent authority. It is further submitted that the order under challenge is an unreasoned order and accordingly, the same is bad.
4. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents. It is submitted that by impugned order petitioner has not been transferred but he has been attached. So far as submission made by counsel for petitioner that impugned order does not contain any reason is concerned, it is submitted that the said submission is misconceived. The opening words of impugned order dated 04.10.2023 clearly mentions that for the better execution and supervision of departmental construction works, which are going on in Rural Engineering Services, Sub-Division Amarwara, respondent Shri Lalchand Meravi, Assistant Engineer has been given the current charge of Rural Engineering Services, Sub-Division Amarwara, which clearly indicates that the attachment of petitioner is in the betterment of Administration and execution of work. Thus, it is submitted that order under challenge is a reasoned order and it cannot be said that it has been passed without any heartbeats.
5. Heard the learned counsel for parties.
6. It is well established principle of law that the reasons are heartbeats of an order and only from the order it can be ascertained as to whether authorities have applied its mind or not.
7. The opening words of order dated 04.10.2023 reads as under :-
^^xzkeh.k fodkl foHkkx varZxr xzkeh.k ;kaf=dh lsok milaHkkx vejokM+k esa py jgs foHkkxh; fuekZ.k dk;ksZ ds lqpk: :i ls laEiknu ,oa fØ;kUo;u gsrq dk;kZy;hu O;oLFkk ds rgr xzkeh.k ;kaf=dh lsok laHkkx Ø0 nks fNUnokM+k esa inLFk Jh ykypUn esjkoh lgk;d ;a=h dks xzkeh.k ;kaf=dh lsok milaHkkx vejokM+k dk izHkkj 4 W.P.No.26340/2023 vLFkkbZ :i ls lkSik tkrk gS] ,oa Jh f'koflag c?ksy ¼ewy in mi;a=h½ izHkkjh vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh xzkeh.k ;kaf=dh lsok milaHkkx vejokM+k dks xzkeh.k ;kaf=dh lsok laHkkx Ø0 ,d fNUnokM+k esa layXu fd;k tkrk gSA 'kklu Lrj ls vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh milaHkkx vejokM+k ds in ij vkns'k gksus ls ;g vkns'k Loeso fujLr ekuk tkosxkA mDr vkns'k rRdky izHkko'khy gksxkA^^
8. Thus, it is clear that the order of attachment has been passed for better administration of justice and construction of work going on in Sub- Division Amarwara.
9. So far as the contention of petitioner that he has been transferred is concerned, the same is not correct. By the impugned order, current charge of post of Sub-Division Amarwara has been withdrawn from petitioner. It is well established principle of law that any employee, who is holding the current charge of post, is not entitled to claim as a matter of right.
10. 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 5 W.P.No.26340/2023 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."
11. So far as the competency of CEO, Jila Panchayat, Chhindwara to issue an order of attachment is concerned, counsel for petitioner has not pointed out any reason to claim that Collector, Chhindwara is not the competent authority for the reasons that impugned order dated 04.10.2023 has been issued by CEO, Jila Panchayat after approval by the Collector.
12. No other argument is advanced by counsel for petitioner to challenge the impugned order dated 04.10.2023.
13. As no case is made out warranting interference, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE TG/-
TRUPTI GUNJAL 2023.10.13 10:47:26 +05'30'