Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Kavita Adarsh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64564
1 WP-24109-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 9 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 24109 of 2018
KU. KAVITA ADARSH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pravesh Naveriya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sumit Raghuwansi - G.A. for the respondent/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 11840 of 2018
SMT SITA SWAMI TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pravesh Naveriya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sumit Raghuwansi - G.A. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
At the outset, counsel for the State fairly submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the order dated 5.10.2018 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ku.Janki Mishra Vs. State of M.P. passed in W.P.No.9806/2018.
2. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ku.Janki Mishra Vs. State of M.P. in W.P.No.9806/2018 decided on 5.10.2018 has held as under Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 12/11/2025 10:35:05 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64564 2 WP-24109-2018 :-
None present for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 25.6.2018 passed in WP No.11889/2018.
Having examined the record, it is noticed that the petitioner is aggrieved with the condition of debarring the Warden who have already worked for a period of 3 years by the impugned orders dated 31.3.2018 and 11.8.2017. The coordinate bench of this Court in WP No.11889/2018 in the case of Smt. Pratibha Shukla Vs. Union of India and others vide order dated 25.6.2018 has examined the issue in detail and has held as under:-
"From a perusal of the petition as well as the documents annexed therewith, I do not find any document revealing that there is any order or instructions issued by the State Government restraining the petitioner to participate in the fresh selection process, if any, is conducted. From perusal of the impugned orders Annexure P-8 and Annexure P-9 shows that there is no such restriction imposed. Although, Annexure P-7, a letter dated
03.05.2018 reveals that the Wardens who have completed three years period then they should not 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 petitioner has annexed the order by which she has been given additional charge of Hostel Warden i.e. Annexure P-4 which clearly reveals that she has been granted the charge of the post of Hostel Warden temporarily, therefore, as a matter of right she cannot claim to be continued on the said post for an indefinite period especially when her substantive post is Adhyapak. Even otherwise, letters which are impugned in this petition, are not addressed to the petitioner and as such no cause of action arises in her favour to challenge the same. It is not a case of the petitioner that she is being removed from the post of Warden before completing the period Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 12/11/2025 10:35:05 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64564 3 WP-24109-2018 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 petitioner is Adhyapak but she is claiming that the State Government cannot frame a policy depriving her 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 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." Having regard to the detailed reasons which have been assigned in the case of Smt. Pratibha Shukla (supra), I do not find any merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.
3. Considering the submissions of the Counsel for the State and as the Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 12/11/2025 10:35:05 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64564 4 WP-24109-2018 cases of similarly situated persons have been dismissed by order dated 5.10.2018 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ku.Janki Mishra Vs. State of M.P. passed in W.P.No.9806/2018, these petitions also stand dismissed in the light of order passed in Ku.Janki Mishra (supra) .
(DEEPAK KHOT) JUDGE HS Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 12/11/2025 10:35:05 AM