Madhya Pradesh High Court
Om Prakash Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62537
1 WP-39111-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 2 nd OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 39111 of 2025
OM PRAKASH SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Girish Kekre - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This is a petition by the petitioner while praying for the following reliefs:
"i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner on the post of District Project Coordinator, at any nearby district other than Bhopal with all consequential benefits; ii. Quash and set aside the order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the Deputy Secretary, State Education Department, whereby the appointment of the Petitioner on the post of District Project Coordinator was severed (Annexure P/13);
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction declaring that the enquiry report dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure P/15), whereby the Petitioner was exonerated of all allegations, is binding upon the Respondents; iv. Direct the Respondents to consider and decide the representations dated 16.07.2025 (Annexures P/16) of the petitioner within a stipulated period, in accordance with law.
v. Pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 04-12-2025 14:34:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62537 2 WP-39111-2025
2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, who is an employee of the School Education Department, was sent on deputation to Rajya Shiksha Kendra vide order dated 07.06.2024. While being posted on deputation, the petitioner herein was confronted with an order dated 27.05.2025 contained in Annexure P/12 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Bhopal and on the basis of newspaper publication, an inquiry was ordered. On the same day, i.e. on 27.05.2025, the order was passed by which the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department. It is contended by the counsel that in terms of the order dated 27.05.2025 an inquiry was conducted. As per the inquiry report which is contained in Annexure P/15, the petitioner was exonerated and the charges were not found to be proved against him. Therefore, the order of repatriation, which is impugned in the petition, deserves to be set aside. It is contended by the counsel that the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P/12) was stigmatic, having been passed based on allegations against the petitioner and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47, Union of India v. S.N. Malty and another reported in (2015) 4 SCC 164, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and others v. Dr. R.K. Shashtri and another reported in 2005 (4) MPHT 352, and Prakash Narayan Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WPS No.217/2015).
3. Counsel for the State contended that the petitioner is making a futile attempt to club two different causes i.e. order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 04-12-2025 14:34:26 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62537 3 WP-39111-2025 P/12) issued by Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Bhopal by which he issued direction for conduct of inquiry against the petitioner whereas the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P/13) has been passed by the State Government by which the petitioner has been repatriated to his parent department and such orders are not at all stigmatic as the same do not cause any stigma and the same is not open to challenge. It is further contended by the counsel that perusal of paragraph 7 of the return makes it abundantly clear that the decision has been taken by the State to repatriate the petitioner back to his parent department. It is also contended by the counsel that a fresh advertisement has been issued for appointment against the post of District Project Coordinator and written examination as well as interview have already been conducted, and therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim posting at the place of deputation as a matter of right.
4. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record.
5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P/13) reflects that the State Government has repatriated the petitioner to his parent department. The petitioner is making an attempt to establish a nexus between the order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P/12) and also order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P/13), which is contained in Annexure P/13. If both the aforesaid orders are subjected to assiduous scrutiny, it would reveal that the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Bhopal, vide order dated 27.05.2025, appointed S.D.O. as well as Tehsildar to conduct an inquiry pertaining to the allegations which were published in the local daily newspaper regarding Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 04-12-2025 14:34:26 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62537 4 WP-39111-2025 irregularities committed by the District Project Coordinator. On the same day, i.e. on 27.05.2025, another order contained in Annexure P/13 has been issued by the State Government. It is not a case where the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Bhopal, made any recommendation to the State to repatriate the petitioner nor is there any document on record to establish that the State directed the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Bhopal, to conduct an inquiry against the present petitioner.
6. A perusal of the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P/13) on the face of it reflects that the same is not stigmatic. No allegation on the same order has been levelled, and the petitioner was only repatriated back to his parent department. Such an order of repatriation in the absence of any mala fide allegation is not available to challenge inasmuch as a deputationist cannot claim posting on deputation as a matter of right. (Please see: Union of India through Govt. of Pondicherry and another Vs. V. Ramakrishnan and others reported in (2005) 8 SCC 394, and Kunal Nandu v. Union of India reported in AIR 2000 SC 2076)
7. It is further evident from perusal of the return filed by the State that a fresh advertisement on 23.06.2025 was issued. Written test as well as interview have already been conducted, and the merit list is under process or preparation. Therefore, in such circumstances, no interference with the impugned orders is warranted. The decisions which are being relied upon by the petitioner are of no assistance to him inasmuch as the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and others v. Dr. R.K. Shashtri and another reported in 2005 (4) MPHT 352 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 04-12-2025 14:34:26 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62537 5 WP-39111-2025 as well as decision of High Court of Chhattisgarh passed in WPS No.217/2015 in the case of Prakash Narayan Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh and others pertain to cases of suspension. The decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash (supra) and S.N. Malty (supra) are also not applicable to the present case inasmuch as, in the case in hand, the order of repatriation is not stigmatic.
8. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE vc Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 04-12-2025 14:34:26