Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ganga Singh Goutam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-13433-2017
sh
(GANGA SINGH GOUTAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
e
2
ad
Jabalpur, Dated : 20-12-2017
None for the petitioner even in the passover round.
Pr
Mr. S.S. Chouhan, learned P.L. for the State.
a
Mr. S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
hy Heard on I.A. No.16155/2017.
ad Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 contended that by impugned order dated 15.08.2017 (Annexure-P/6) the M private respondent was given current/officiating charge of of Principal. No fault can be found in the said order. The petitioner's substantive post is 'Adhyapak'. In AIR rt 1993 SC 2273 (State of Haryana vs. S.M. Sharma ou and others), the Apex Court held as under:-
C â11. We are constrained to say that the High Court extended its extraordinary jurisdiction h under Article 226 of the Constitution to a ig frivolity. No one has a right to ask for or stick to a current duty charge. The impugned order did H 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.â The said judgment is followed by this Court in 2016 (3) MPLJ 152 (Dr. V.B. Singh Baghel vs. State of M.P. and others). The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
â9. The question is whether this executive instructions can be enforced in a writ petition. This aspect is no more res-integra. A five judge bench judgment of Supreme Court in AIR 1965 SC 1196 (State of Assam & Another vs. Ajit sh Kumar Sarma & Others) held that executive instructions confer no right of any kind and the e same cannot be a reason for the High Court to ad issue mandamus against the State Government. It is relevant to note here that the petitioner has Pr not alleged and argued that the impugned order is malicious in nature. The Government is the a best judge to decide the question of posting of hy an officer at a particular place. Unless such posting runs contrary to any statutory provision ad or infringes any fundamental or statutory right of an employee, no mandamus can be issued. A Division Bench of this Court in 2007 (4) MPLJ M 548 (Bhartiya Kishan Sangh District Bhind vs. Union of India & Others) held that of existence of legal right and public duty to be performed by either side coupled with statutory rt duties are the necessary ingredients for issuance of writ of mandamus or for the purpose ou of administrative functions. In AIR 1975 SC 2135 (Isha Beevi & Others vs. Tax Recovery C Officer & Others), the Apex Court held that 'No occasion for the issue of writ of mandamus h can arise unless the applicants show non-
ig compliance with some mandatory provision and H seek to get that provision enforced because some obligations towards them is not carried out by the authority alleged to be flouting the law. In AIR 1993 SC 2273 (State of Haryana vs. S.M. Sharma & Others), the Apex Court held that the High Court extended its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to a frivolity. It was held that 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 the employee. He had no cause of action whatsoever to invoke the writ of jurisdiction of the High Court. The Apex Court observed that it was a patent misuse of process of the Court by the High Court. (Para 11) sh
10. In the said case also, the petitioner was claiming the charge on officiating/current charge basis. In e view of aforesaid, in my view, no legal vested, ad statutory or constitutional right of the petitioner is infringed by the respondents. The respondents Pr cannot be compelled to implement the circular (Annexure P/3) by issuing a writ of mandamus. The decision taken by the government is in a public interest and for public good need not be hy interfered in discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ad unless it is proved that the said order is malicious in nature or infringes any M fundamental/statutory or vested right of the employee. For these reasons, no interference can of be made in this petition.â (Emphasis supplied) rt Thus, it is clear that no writ of mandamus can be ou issued to provide the charge of a post on officiating C basis. Apart from this, W.P. No.1537/2013 filed by the h petitioner was also dismissed. Thus, it find no reason to ig continue the interim order. Accordingly, I.A. H No.16155/2017 is allowed. The interim order dated 12.09.2017 stands vacated. C.C. as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2017.12.20 17:11:58 +05'30' H ig h s@if C ou rt of M ad hy a Pr ad e sh