Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Leela Ahirwar vs The Union Of India on 25 June, 2018
1 Writ Petition No.11887/2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.11887/2018.
(Smt. Leela Ahirwar Vs. The Union of India and others.)
Jabalpur, dated 25.06.2018.
Shri Anoop Saxena, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for respondent No.1.
Shri G.P. Singh, Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant petition, he has claimed the following reliefs:
1. To quash the impugned orders dated 03.05.2018 and 08.05.2018 further the respondent department be directed to quash condition of three years time limit to the post of Warden and the petitioner be permitted to continue to work as Warden of Kasturba Gandhi Girls Hostel, Chandla, District Chhatarpur (MP).
2 To grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Central Government has formulated a Scheme for establishing the residential Schools for uplifting the educational standard among the women with an object to make them literate as in India the women literacy ratio is very low. The said Scheme has been named as Kastoorba Gandhi Balika Vidya Yojna. The said Scheme contains certain guidelines as to in what manner, the 2 Writ Petition No.11887/2018 Schools will work. It is also shown therein as to in what manner the staff of the hostels would work. The Scheme further provides that in the hostels only lady teachers would be appointed as Warden. The Scheme is available on record as Annexure P-1 and instructions issued to the District Education Officer on 25.08.2011 directing all the District Education Officers as to in what manner they would conduct the management of the hostels.
The petitioner was appointed as a Hostel Warden by letter dated 18.07.2007 (Annxure P-4) whereby respondent No.4 instructed the respective Block Coordinator, Janpad Shiksha Kendra, Londi to appoint the petitioner as Hostel Warden. As such, petitioner was appointed as Hostel Warden for Kastoorba Gandhi Balika Chhatrawas, Chandla temporarily with a clear instruction that apart from her substantive work of teaching, she would also perform the duties on the post of Superintendent of hostel.
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 orders have been issued on 24.03.2017 and 11.08.2017 whereby 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. As per petitioner, such directions cannot be issued as the Scheme does not provide any time limit. 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.
3 Writ Petition No.11887/2018From a perusal of the petition as well as the documents annexed therewith, I do not find any document revealing that there is any order and instruction 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 Sahayak Shikshak. 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 4 Writ Petition No.11887/2018 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 petitioner is Assistant Teacher 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 5 Writ Petition No.11887/2018 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.
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 petitioner that she is being removed before completing three years period on the post of Hostel Warden, I find no case is made out in her favour and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Devashish Digitally signed by DEVASHISH MISHRA Date: 2018.06.30 03:14:01 -07'00'