Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Daheriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 2018
1 WP-12634-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-12634-2018
(SANJAY DAHERIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 16-07-2018
Shri Anshuman Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri D. Mishra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the instant petition, he has claimed the following reliefs:
(i) Set aside the impugned orders dated 13.09.2017 issued by the respondent No.2 (Annexure P/3).
(ii) Set aside the impugned order dated 08.05.2018 issued by respondent No.3 (Annexure P/4).
(iii) Direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue on the post of Superintendent in various Hostels/Ashrams, in which they are working under the respondents.
(iv) Any other order or orders that this Honourable Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed with the costs of the petition.
The petitioners working as Superintendents in various hostels of the Tribal Department across Chhindwara District have filed the present petition, challenging the impugned order dated 08.05.2018 and 13.09.2017. The petitioners were initially substantively appointed as Sahayak Adhyapaks under the respondent department. They were subsequently ordered to work as Superintendents in various hostels of the Tribal Department in different places in Chhindwara. Vide order dated 13.09.2017, it was directed that all the Superintendents who were working for more than a period of 3 years, should be posted back in the schools and in their places, regularly appointed Superintendents or Samvida Shikshak Grade II should be posted as Superintendents. Thereafter vide another order dated 08.05.2018, applications were invited from the Upper Division Teachers/Time Scale Assistant Teachers/Adhyapaks/Varishtha Adhyapaks to work as Superintendents in these hostels.
As per the petitioner, in the Scheme formulated by the Central Government, no time limit to hold the post of Warden has been provided. Despite that directions have been issued for fresh advertisement inviting application for filling the post of Warden where existing Warden has completed the period of three years. It is also averred in the petition that the State Government is not allowing the existing Hostel Warden, who have completed three years of period as a Hostel Warden to participate in the fresh selection process and had invited applications from the Upper Division Teachers/Time Scale Assistant Teachers/Adhyapaks/Varishtha Adhyapaks only.
2 WP-12634-2018 From a perusal of the petition as well as the documents annexed therewith, it is evident that vide letter dated 13.09.2017 the Wardens who have completed three years period are not to be given further charge of the said post for coming three years. The letter further reveals that such restriction has been imposed in pursuant to the letter dated 11.08.2017 issued by the Rajya Shiksha Kendra.
In my opinion, there is no illegality in the letter issued by the Authority restraining wardens who have already completed three years of period for holding the charge of post of Superintendent of the hostels for a further period of three years.
It is the prerogative of the State Government to assign the charge of the post of the Hostel Warden for a specific period. In the present case, the petitioners have annexed the order by which they have been given additional charge of Hostel Warden i.e. Annexure P-2 which clearly reveals that they have been granted the charge of the post of Hostel Warden temporarily, therefore, as a matter of right they cannot claim to be continued on the said post for an indefinite period especially when their substantive post is Adhyapak. Even otherwise, letters which are impugned in this petition, are not addressed to the petitioners and as such no cause of action arises in their favour to challenge the same. It is not a case of the petitioner that they are being removed from the post of Warden before completing the period of three years. In this situation also, there is no occasion for the petitioner to seek the quashment of the impugned letters.
The Coordinate Bench of this Court on earlier occasion almost in a similar situation has dealt with this issue in Writ Petition No.11283/2017 parties being Abha Pandey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 28.08.2017 whereby the order passed by the Authority withdrawing the additional charge of the Warden of Girls Hostel was under challenge. The Court has finally observed that additional charge on the post of Warden cannot be claimed nor it can be claimed to hold the said charge continuously as a matter of right because the substantive post of the petitioner was Assistant Teacher and having no enforceable right on the post of Warden on which she was working on officiating basis. Similarly, in the present case, the post of the petitioners are Adhyapak but they are claiming that the State Government cannot frame a policy depriving them to hold the additional charge of the post of Warden continuously for more than three years.
Thus, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Abha Pandey (supra), petition deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner has no legal vested or constitutional right to continue on officiating basis on the post of Warden. Likewise, in Writ Petition No.14592/2016 parties being Smt. Neelam Bajpai Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others; Writ Petition No.14799/2016 parties being Smt. Sandhya Nayak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others; Writ Petition No.15273/2016 parties being Kamini Rawat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others and Writ Petition No.13103/2017 parties being Mrs. Suman Ahirwar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others this Court has also dealt with the same issue and finally observed that the petitioner since holding the additional charge of the post 3 WP-12634-2018 of Warden, has no fundamental or legal right to continue to hold the said charge and further placing reliance in a case of Abha Pandey (supra), dismissed the petition saying that there is nothing illegal on the part of the State to frame a policy for not giving additional charge to the candidates already completed three years on the said post.
Looking to the above enunciation of law on earlier occasion, so also the facts involved in the present case especially when there is no apprehension shown by the petitioners that they are being removed before completing three years period on the post of Hostel Warden, I find no case is made out in their favour and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
(NANDITA DUBEY) JUDGE ak/ Digitally signed by ASHISH KOSHTA Date: 2018.07.20 10:29:58 +05'30'