Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Kumar Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 21 April, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10184
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
WRIT APPEAL No. 903 of 2025
JITENDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
Vs
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND MANPOWER PLANNING DE AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance :
Shri Amit S. Agrawal - learned Senior Advocate with Shri Manoj
Manav - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava - learned Deputy A.G. for the respondent Nos. 1
& 2/State.
Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra - learned Senior Advocate with Shri
Prateek Patwardhan - learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heard on : 02.04.2025
Pronounced on : 21.04.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at Motion Stage.
1. The present intra court appeal under section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed by appellant challenging final order dated 01.03.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 41575 of 2024, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein has been dismissed. Appellant/Petitioner had preferred Writ Petition under Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 4/22/2025 2:47:01 PM 2 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10184 Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs, which have been denied by the Learned Writ court:-
"7.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction and the impugned order dated 20/12/2024(P/1) may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice.
7.2 That, till the regular promotion appointment is made to the post of principal, Government Engineering College, Ujjain (M.P) the Petitioner who is the senior most professor in the State of M.P may kindly be allowed to discharge the duty of principal.
7.3 That, this writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost. 7.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may further pleased to grant any other relief, if deem fits in present facts and circumstances."
2. Brief undisputed facts of the case, which led to the filing of present writ appeal are as hereunder : -
i) Petitioner/Appellant had appeared in 1988 M.P.P.S.C exam and was placed at Sr. no. 1 in the merit list. Thereafter, Petitioner/Appellant was duly appointed on the post of Lecturer at Engineering College, Ujjain (M.P) by order dated 15.03.1989. Subsequently, Petitioner/Appellant was given appointment on the post of Reader at Govt. Engineering College, Ujjain (M.P) by order dated 15.07.1993 and again he was placed at Sr. no.1 in the merit list. Thereafter, Petitioner/Appellant has been promoted on post of Professor by order dated 31.10.2002 w.e.f. 16.07.2001 under the Career Advancement Scheme.
Petitioner/Appellant is Senior Professor in Respondent Department in State of Madhya Pradesh and was given charge of In-charge Principal at Government Engineering College, Ujjain (M.P) vide order dated 06.10.2021 issued in the name of Governor, State of M.P. by Additional Secretary.
ii) Respondent no.3, Umesh Pendharkar, on other hand was originally posted as Lecturer and under Career Advancement scheme was given promotion of the post of Professor w.e.f. 10.08.2009, which is subsequent to Petitioner. Respondent no.3 Umesh Pendharkar was granted charge of the said post from Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 4/22/2025 2:47:01 PM 3 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10184 year 2015 to 2019 and subsequently vide order dated 06.10.2021, Petitioner was granted charge of the said post.
iii) Petitioner's/Appellant's grievance is that vide impugned order dated 20.12.2024, the Respondent no.3, who is junior to the petitioner, has been given the charge of In-charge Principal, Government Engineering College, Ujjain ( M.P) in place of Petitioner, despite the petitioner/appellant holding all pre-requisites for post of In-charge Principal. Petitioner/Appellant has further raised grievance that despite the fact that he is senior, his ACRs would be written by an officer, who is junior to him. Hence, Petitioner/Appellant had approached this court by filing Writ Petition
iv) Respondent State had submitted their reply and had brought on record that during tenure of Petitioner/Appellant several complaints regarding financial irregularities were received against the Petitioner/Appellant and the charge of the Petitioner/Appellant was handed over to Respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 20.12.2024. Consequently, vide order dated 10.01.2025 a committee had been formed to conduct enquiry into allegations levelled against Petitioner/Appellant.
v) Petitioner/Appellant had submitted Rejoinder in the Writ Petition and has subsequently brought on record that Respondent no.3 was earlier directed to work as an in-charge Principal of the college but due to financial irregularity and other misconduct he was removed from the position of In-charge Principal. Petitioner has further relied upon letter dated 30.12.2020 whereby inquiry against Respondent no.3 is pending before Economic Office Wing. Another ground which has been raised in rejoinder is that the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 has been passed by a subordinate authority and not authenticated by the Governor. It is further stated that initially charge was granted vide order dated 06.10.2021, which was issued in name of the Governor and now impugned order has been passed by Deputy Secretary, which is impermissible in eyes of law.
vi) Writ Court vide impugned final order dated 01.03.2025 dismissed the petition of the appellant herein, while holding that there is no procedure prescribed for Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 4/22/2025 2:47:01 PM 4 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10184 appointment of In-charge Principal of the Government College, and they appear to be appointed on the sole discretion of the Government. Thus, the present writ appeal has been preferred by Petitioner/Appellant.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Appellant has argued that Petitioner/Appellant is senior most Professor in the technical Education Department, his substantive post is Reader and the substantive post of Private respondent no. 3 is lecturer so in terms of seniority and in terms of substantive post the Respondent no.3 is junior to Petitioner/Appellant. Learned Senior Counsel, has further submitted that inquiry against petitioner before Lokayukta has been closed vide order dated 21.11.2024 prior to issuance of impugned order dated 20.12.2024 and thus, there was no inquiry pending as on passing of impugned order. It is only after passing of impugned order dated 20.12.2024, another enquiry has been initiated by formulating a committee vide order dated 10.01.2025. Therefore, impugned order dated 20.12.2024 is unsustainable in eyes of law and equity.
4. Learned Senior counsel for Petitioner, has further argued that impugned order dated 20.12.2024 has been passed in utter violation of Article 166 of Constitution of India and on this ground itself the same is liable to be quashed. Petitioner was initially granted charge of Principal, Government Engineering College, Ujjain (M.P) vide order dated 06.10.2021 issued in the name of Governor, however, vide impugned order dated 20.12.2024, said Charge has been removed from Petitioner and granted to Respondent no.3 by Deputy Secretary without there being any authentication from Governor, as the same is not issued in name of Governor. It is consistently argued that prior to passing of impugned order dated 20.12.2024, authentication from Governor as mandated under Article 166 (1) & (2) of Constitution of Indiahas not been obtained, as the same is passed by Deputy Secretary, who is subordinate to Governor. Furthermore, order dated 06.10.2021 has been issued in name of Governor exercising powers under Article 166 of Constitution of India and thus the same can only be rectified/modified by Governor and not by subordinate authority. To bolster this contention reliance Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 4/22/2025 2:47:01 PM 5 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10184 has been placed by learned Senior Counsel on State of Kerala Vs. Smt. A Lakshmikutty & Others (1986) 4 SCC 632 and J. P Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2003) 5 SCC 134.
5. Learned Senior Counsel has further placed reliance on circular dated 14.11.1996 bearing no. 11-38/96/1 issued by State Government, wherein instructions for granting charge of post, which remain vacant has been enumerated and has therefore contended that it is not a case, where no rule or guideline for current charge is in existence. It has been contended that as per the said circular, the senior most officer should be given charge until and unless special circumstances/reasons exists for not giving the charge to senior most person.
6. Per Contra, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent no.3 has argued that contentions with regards to violation of Article 166 of Constitution of India have not been raised in memo of Writ Petition and hence, the same cannot be raised at this juncture in Writ Appeal. It has been further contented that Hon'ble Writ Court has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that there are no rules in existence with regards to grant of charge of Principal and hence, no right exists in favour of appellant to be enforced in Writ Jurisdiction. It is further stated that various complaints have been made against the Petitioner on account of illegal payment to the outsourcing agency, and the Lokayukta has also taken cognizance to such complaints against the appellant, and in such circumstances, looking to the pending complaints against him, the impugned order has been rightly passed granting charge in favour of Respondent no.3.
7. It is further argued by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent no.3 that although one case is closed against the Petitioner/Appellant but other case is still pending before the Lokayukta police and Government has instituted an inquiry into the charges levelled against the Petitioner/Appellant vide order dated 10.01.2025. Complaint against Petitioner/Appellant was filed on 19.04.2024, which is prior to passing of order dated 20.12.2024.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 4/22/2025 2:47:01 PM 6NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10184
8. In support of his contention, Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent no.3 has relied upon judgment dated 5th July 2023, passed by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ appeal no. 1393 of 2022 in case of Smt. Chhaya Parihar Vs. State of MadhyaPradesh decided on 5th July 2023 and judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. S.M Sharma & Ors.MANU/SC/0338/1993.
9. Learned Counsel for State Government, in their arguments have supported the observations opined by the Writ Court and have vehemently argued that charge of the said post has been granted on temporary basis and no rights can be crystallized over the same. Moreover, the rules are silent about the charge, whether it has to be given to senior most person only and the authority of State Government is discretionary. Additional charge does not give any monetary benefit and hence claiming the temporary charge is contrary to law.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner in rebuttal has submitted that the plea regarding violation of Article 166 of Constitution of India is purely a question of law, which can be raised at any stage of proceedings. In support of the said submission reliance has been placed by learned Senior Counsel on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court inYeswant Deorao Deshmukh Vs. Walchand Ramchand Kothari [(1950) SCC 766], Tarini Kamal Pandit and others Vs. Prafulla Kumar Chatterjee [(1979) 3 SCC 280] and Shehla A Burney(Dr.) and others Vs. Syed Ali Mossa Raza [(2011) 6 SCC 529].
11. We have Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents records.
12. So far as objection of learned senior counsel for Respondent no.3 that contention regarding violation of Article 166 of Constitution of India while passing impugned order cannot be raised at this stage of proceedings is concerned, it is pertinent to note here that the said contention purely raises question of law and hence, the same can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in light of the judgments relied upon by learned senior counsel for Petitioner/Appellant. Hence, the said objection being devoid of merit is hereby rejected.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 4/22/2025 2:47:01 PM 7NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10184
13. From the arguments advanced by the parties and upon perusal of the impugned judgment dated 01.03.2025, following issues arise for consideration before this Court:-
i) Whether a current charge of a post granted in name of the Governor can be rectified/modified without authentication of the Governor? If yes, then will the same tantamount to violation to Article 166 of Constitution of India?
ii) If there are no rules or Executive instructions for granting Charge of a vacant post, then whether charge has to be given, considering seniority of eligible person?
14. Before proceeding to adjudicate the aforesaid issues, it would be apposite to reproduce relevant legal provisions and circulars/instructions relied upon by Counsel for the parties:-
Article 166 of Constitution of India :
166. (1) All executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor.
(2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor, and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor.
(3) The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion. Relevant Rules under Madhya Pradesh Government Business(Allocation) Rules " 6. All orders or instruments made or executed by order or on behalf of the Government of Madhya Pradesh shall be Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 4/22/2025 2:47:01 PM 8 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10184 expressed to be made or executed by order and in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh.
7. Save in cases where an officer has been specially empowered to sign an order or instrument of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, every such order or instrument shall be signed by either the Chief Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary, Secretary, Additional Secretary, Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary or Under Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, and such signature shall be deemed to be the proper authentication of such order or instrument.
Supplementary Instructions under Rule 13 of the Business Rules:
"2. Subject to the Rules of Business, and the practice of the Department and any general or special order of the Chief minister or the Minister-in-charge a Secretary may dispose of cases of routine nature and those in which either no question of policy is involved or the question of policy has been settled."
Circular dated 14.11.1996 bearing no. 11-38/96/1 "विषयः रिक्त पद का चालू प्रभार दिये जाने के संबंध में।
शासन के ध्यान में लाया गया है कि कभी कभी रिक्त पद का चालू प्रभार समकक्ष अथवा वरिष्ठतम अधीनस्थ को न सौंपते हुए किसी कनिष्ट अधीनस्थ को सौंप दिया जाता है। यह उचित नहीं है क्योंकि एक वरिष्ठ शासकीय सेवक को अपने से कनिष्ठ के sa मातहत काम करना पड़े यह प्रशासनिक दृष्टि से ठीक नहीं है।
2.अतः यह निर्णय लिया गया है कि कोई पद रिक्त होने की स्थिति में उसकी पूर्ति यथा शीघ्र पदस्थापना से कर ली जाना चाहिए, जहाँ रिक्त पद का चालू प्रभार दे ने की स्थिति निर्मित हो वहाँ पर ऐसा प्रभार नियंत्रणकर्ता अधिकारी की स्थापना में कार्यरत किसी ऐसे शासकीय सेवक को, जो रिक्त पद के समकक्ष पद पर कार्यरत है अथवा सामान्यतः ऐसे वरिष्ठतम शासकीय सेवक को जो रिक्त पद से निम्नतर पद पर कार्यरत हैं , सौंपा जाना चाहिए, परन्तु यदि किसी विशेष कारण से इस स्थिति में हटकर व्यवस्था की जाना वांछनीय हो तब Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 4/22/2025 2:47:01 PM 9 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10184 नियंत्रणकर्ता अधिकारी द्वारा अपने वरिष्ठ अधिकारी से आदेश प्राप्त किया जाना चाहिए।
3. कृ पया उपरोक्त निर्देशों का कड़ाई से पालन सुनिश्चित कराया जाये।"
(म.प्र.शा.सा.प्र.वि. क्रमांकएफ 11-38/96/1, दिनांक 14.11.1996)
15. For the purpose of adjudication of Issue no. (i), it is apposite to take into consideration Article 166 of Constitution of India and when the same is read and understood in the context of the facts of the case at hand, it is divulged that Petitioner was granted Charge of Principal, Government Engineering College, Ujjain (M.P) vide order dated 06.10.2021, which was issued in name of the Governor. On other hand the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 has been issued without authentication of Governor by an authority, who is sub ordinate to Governor. It is well settled law that if a statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner then it should be done in that manner only and not otherwise. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, even though impugned order dated 20.12.2024 is stated to have been issued by State Government, the order had to be expressed to be issued in the name of governor and authenticated in the manner so prescribed and failure to do so, violates Article 166 of Constitution of India rendering the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 as invalid.
16. The view taken by this court hereinabove is further fortified by the view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Kerala Vs. Smt. A Lakshmikutty & Others [ (1986) 4 SCC 632],wherein it has been observed as hereunder:
"41. There was quite some discussion at the bar as to whether the Council of Ministers could have reviewed their earlier decision and decided not to appoint anybody from the panel of names forwarded by the High Court and to issue a fresh notification inviting applications. The answer to the question is self-evident. Merely because the Chief Minister briefed the press on January 31, 1985 as regards the decision taken at the meeting of the Council of Ministers held on the previous day and the news of the press conference was published in the Mathru-bhoom and other Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 4/22/2025 2:47:01 PM 10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10184 Malyalam newspapers to the effect that the Government had decided to fill up four posts of District Judges, it could not be said that there was an order of the State Government in the manner required by Article 166(1). What the news item conveyed was that the Council of Ministers had taken a decision to advise the Governor to appoint respondents Nos. 3-6 as District Judges. The Governor has to act with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as required by Article 163(1). Whatever the Council of Ministers may say in regard to a particular matter, does not become the action of the State Government till the advice of the Council of Ministers is accepted or deemed to be accepted by the Head of the State. Before an advice of the Council of Ministers amounts to an order of the State Government, there are two requirements to be fulfilled, namely: (1) The order of the State Government had to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by Article 166(1), and (2) It has to be communicated to the persons concerned.
See: State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh MANU/SC/0006/1960 : [1961]2SCR371 and Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab [1962] Su 1. SCR 713.
It must therefore follow that unless and until the decision taken by the Council of Ministers on January 30, 1985 was translated into action by the issue of a notification expressed in the name of the Governor as required by Article 166(1), it could not be said to be an order of the State Government. Until then, the earlier decision of the Council of Ministers was only a tentative one and it was therefore fully competent for the High Court to reconsider the matter and come to a fresh decision."
17. Similarly in J. P Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan and another [ (2003) 5 SCC 134],the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 4/22/2025 2:47:01 PM 11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10184 "8. We need not delve into the disputed question as to whether there was any Cabinet decision, as it has not been established that there was any Government order in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution. The Constitution requires that the action must be taken by the authority concerned in the name of the Governor. It is not till this formality is observed that the action can be regarded as that of the State. Constitutionally speaking the Council for Ministers are advisors and as the head of the State, the Governor is to act with the aid or advice of the Council of Ministers. Therefore, till the advice is accepted by the Governor, views of the Council of Ministers does not get crystalised into action of the State. (See: The State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh MANU/SC/0006/1960 :
[1961]2SCR371. Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. MANU/SC/0366/1962 : AIR1963SC395). That being so, the first plea of the appellant is rejected.
18. So far as contention of Respondent no.3 with regards to Business Allocation Rules, as illustrated in foregoing para is concerned, the same is without merit as it is expressly mentioned in Rule 6 that all orders or instruments made or executed by order or on behalf of the Government of Madhya Pradesh shall be expressed to be made or executed by order and in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh which is absent in the impugned order dated 20.12.2024. In the considered opinion of this court, once an order or executive instruction has been issued in name of the Governor with his authentication, rectifying/modifying the same without his assent blatantly violates Article 166 of the Constitution of India and is impermissible in the eyes of law. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, we decide issue no. (i) in favour of petitioner/Appellant.
19. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we now deal with issue (ii), herein under. The subject regarding rights over Charge of post is no more res integraand the Division Bench this Court in case of Smt. Chhaya Parihar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Writ Appeal 1393 of 2022)after relying upon judgment Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 4/22/2025 2:47:01 PM 12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10184 passed by Hon'ble Supreme court has opined that no one has right to ask for a current duty charge, as the same does not crystallize any right or cause any financial loss or prejudice of any kind. However, the facts of said case is different from the present case at hand. The judgement of Smt. Chhaya Parihar(supra), does not discuss the aspect of effect of violation of Article 166 of Constitution of India, amidst vacuity of any Rules for grant of current charge. Paragraph 11 and 12 of the said judgment is as under:
"As noticed, the learned Single Bench has declined interference because the petitioner and Respondent no.6 were at loggerheads for a post which is of In-charge capacity. The curtains were finally drawn on this issue by the Supreme Court in AIR 1993 SC 2273 ( State of Haryana Vs. S. M. Sharma and ors.) relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:
" 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. "
12. The Ratio decidendi of said judgment was followed by this court in Dr. V.B Singh Baghel(supra)"
20. The Counsel for State Government has pointed out that rules for grant of Charge of post are silent, however, Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant in rebuttal has produced circular/instructions dated 14.11.1996, which noticeably states that while considering grant of current charge at vacant post senior most person on equivalent post has to be given preference unless special circumstances arises. In the present case, no such special circumstances were in existence as on passing of impugned order dated 20.12.2024 as one enquiry against petitioner was closed on 20.11.2024 and for other enquiry committee was established after passing of impugned Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 4/22/2025 2:47:01 PM 13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10184 order vide order dated 10.01.2025. Even otherwise, it is irrefutable fact that Petitioner is Senior most person at post of Professor and thus in the considered opinion of this court, it will be just in Law of Equity that Petitioner be continued on post of In Charge Principal, Government Engineering College, Ujjain (M.P).
21. In the considered opinion of this court, if there existed no ratified rules for grant of Current charge against vacant post within state, then also any violation of Constitution supersedes and overshadows such vacuity of rule/law. High Court under extra Ordinary jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226 can pertinently address such violation of Constitution and grant equitable relief which harmonises Equity and Law.
22. In Indian Legal System, equality complements strict legal rules by ensuring fairness and justice acting as a secondary source of law to address situations where rigid legal provisions fall short. It is derived from English common law but has evolved to reflect Indian Legal traditions and customs. Equity generally follows the law, but it can also provide remedies or interpretations that are not available under the common law. Thus, issue no. (ii) is answered in the aforesaid terms.
23. Hence, in view of the foregoing discussion, this writ appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 01.03.2025 passed in Writ Petition no. 41574/2024 is hereby set aside and writ petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed. Ex Consequenti, order dated 20.12.2024 passed by Deputy Secretary, so far as it relates to Petitioner/Appellant, is hereby quashed and Respondents are directed to permit the Petitioner/Appellant to continue at the post of In-charge Principal, Government Engineering College, Ujjain (M.P).
24. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and Disposed off in above terms and directions. No order as to Costs.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 4/22/2025
2:47:01 PM
14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10184
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 4/22/2025
2:47:01 PM