Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kunj Bihari Goswami vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MP 1476
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.15359/2019
Kunj Bihari Goswami vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Gwalior, Dated : 31.07.2019
Shri N.S. Kirar, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.N. Seth, Government Advocate for the respondents No.1
to 5/State.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 12.7.2019 passed by respondent No.4 by which the respondent No.6 has been posted on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer in District Adult Education Office, Datia.
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that he is holding the substantive post of Assistant Teacher in Education Department. In the year 2013, a decision was taken to send the petitioner on deputation to the post of Assistant Statistical Officer. By resolution dated 31.5.2014 passed by District Public Education Committee, Datia it was decided that since the performance of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer was good, therefore, it was recommended that the petitioner be continued on the said post. Accordingly, by order dated 26.6.2015, the petitioner was directed to work on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer until further orders. Thereafter, it is submitted that the District Adult Education Officer, Datia fell ill and was also going to retire in near future and since he was on medical leave, therefore, by order dated 18.6.2018 the charge of the post of District Adult Education Officer, 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.15359/2019 Kunj Bihari Goswami vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Datia was handed over to the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 is the Member of the District Public Education Committee and he is bound by the collective decision taken by the Committee and in spite of that, without there being any recommendation by the District Public Education Committee, the impugned order of posting the respondent No.6 on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer has been passed. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that his deputation cannot be cancelled in such an order and the impugned order dated 12.7.2019 is beyond the competence to the respondent No.4 and thus the relieving of the petitioner dated 17.7.2019 is also bad. The petitioner has made a representation to the District Education Officer, Datia as well as to Commissioner State Education Centre, Bhopal, however, no action has been taken so far. The petitioner has also relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Binny Ltd. & Anr. vs. V. Sadasivan & Ors. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 657 and judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. Ravi Shankar Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2006) 5 AllWC 4610 and of Madras High Court in the case of Prince Foundation Limited vs. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority reported in (2015) 2 MLJ 136.
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.15359/2019 Kunj Bihari Goswami vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
3. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that the petitioner has annexed the copy of the order dated 10.10.2012 by which it was provided that if it is found that additional staff is required, then the same can be filled by deputation, contract or outsourcing. Therefore, the deputation of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer was in contravention of the scheme dated 10.10.2012 because he was brought on deputation against a sanctioned vacant post whereas the petitioner could have been sent on deputation only in case of an additional requirement apart from the regular staff. It is further submitted that by resolution dated 31.5.2014, the District Public Education Committee had merely recommended for continuance of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer and, accordingly, by order dated 26.6.2015, the petitioner was permitted to work against the said post till further orders.
4. It is further submitted that since the petitioner was working on deputation, therefore, he has no right to continue on the said post.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. In circular dated 10.10.2012 it is mentioned that in addition to the regular staff working at the District and Block level, if additional staff is required then the same can be filled either by deputation, 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.15359/2019 Kunj Bihari Goswami vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
contract or outsourcing.
7. It is not the case of the petitioner that any Assistant Statistical Officer was already working against the regular post and because of any further requirement, the petitioner was sent on deputation on the said post. Thus it appears that in contravention of the circular dated 10.10.2012 issued by the State Education Centre, the petitioner was sent on deputation against the sanctioned post which otherwise could have been filled up by regular employee. Further by resolution dated 31.5.2014 passed by the District Public Education Committee, Datia it was merely decided to extend the tenure of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer and in consequence thereof by order dated 26.6.2015, the petitioner was directed to continue on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer till further orders. The order dated 26.6.2015 was merely a time gap arrangement and it does not create any substantive right in favour of the petitioner. Since the original posting of the petitioner on deputation on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer was contrary to the circular dated 10.10.2012 issued by the State Education Centre, Bhopal, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent No.4 was not stripped of his powers to post any other person on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer.
8. So far as the collective decision is concerned, it is suffice to 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.15359/2019 Kunj Bihari Goswami vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
say that by resolution dated 31.5.2014, the District Public Education Committee had not extended the period of the petitioner for a particular period but it was extended till further orders. Therefore, if the respondent No.4 has passed the further order, then it cannot be said that the respondent No.4 has travelled beyond the collective decision which was taken by the Public Education Committee, Datia on 31.5.2014.
9. It is further submitted that this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can always direct the authorities to perform their duties within their jurisdiction and since the respondent No.4 has travelled beyond his jurisdiction, therefore the impugned order dated 12.7.2019 is bad.
10. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Binny Ltd. & Anr. vs. V. Sadasivan & Ors. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 657 has held that when the High Court comes to a conclusion that the writ petition is not maintainable, then no relief of a declaration as to invalidity of the impugned order can be issued.
12. In the present case, it is the case of the petitioner that he was deputed to the post of Assistant Statistical Officer. The petitioner has 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.15359/2019 Kunj Bihari Goswami vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
not filed the consent of his parent department. It is submitted that since the petitioner is working in the Education Department and State Education Centre is not a separate department, therefore, no permission from the parent department is required.
13. Be that as it may.
14. The crux of the matter is that the substantive post of the petitioner is Assistant Teacher and atleast from the year 2013 onwards he is working against the post of Assistant Statistical Officer. Further the petitioner has no substantive right to continue on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer.
15. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
(alok) Judge
ALOK KUMAR
2019.08.01 17:01:11
+05'30'