Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Uma Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 February, 2022
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
ON THE 28th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 4831 of 2022
Between:-
SMT. UMA SONI W/O SHRI RAKESH SONI , AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TEACHER
GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL PURAINA,
DISTRICT PANNA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY Ms. SUDHA GAUTAM, LEARNED COUNSEL)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER SCHOOL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISTRICT PANNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SANKUL PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT EXCELLENCE
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL SCHOOL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SHAHNAGAR
DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PHOOL SINGH (U.D.T) GOVERNMENT HIGH
SCHOOL PURAINA SCHOOL EDUCATION
D EPA R TM EN T DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI YOGESH DHANDE, LEARNED G.A. FOR THE STATE &
SHRI SHAKTI KUMAR SONI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
CAVEATOR)
Th is petition coming on for admission, this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein who is challenging the order dated 9.2.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 directing Signature Not Verified SAN respondent No.4 to take over the charge as Incharge Principal of Govt. High Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH Date: 2022.03.03 12:34:04 IST School, Puraina, Block Division, Shahnagar, District Panna on the basis of 2 seniority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had taken over the charge as Incharge Principal of the aforesaid school on 21.02.2022 in compliance of the order dated 21.02.2022 and after 18 days, the respondent No.4 was handed over the charge of the post of Principal in Incharge capacity, which is contrary to the seniority list. Undisputedly, both the petitioner and the respondent No.5 had joined at their place of posting on 28.12.2018 where respondent No.4 is said to have given his joining at 11:20 a.m. and the petitioner gave her joining at 10:30 a.m. It is on the basis of joining time at the present place of posting that the petitioner is seeking seniority over respondent No.4. She also says that respondent No.4 is junior to her in service as the petitioner was appointed way back in the year 1998.
Learned counsel for the caveator has drawn the attention of this Court to page No.5 filed along with the caveat application which is document dated 24.01.2022 issued by the office of the Principal, Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the Govt. Higher Secondary School, Shahnagar, District Panna wherein in the seniority list, the respondent No.4 is placed over and above the petitioner herein. In fact the said document goes to show that respondent No.4 is the senior most teacher working in that school. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show as to how her client has vested right in occupying the post of the Principal Incharge, however, she has referred to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court passed in (1974) 4 SCC 3 (E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu) with specific reference to para 86 in which the Supreme Court has observed that a person in officiating capacity can also be a person aggrieved on account of the rights under Article 14 and 16 being violated if he has been arbitrarily or unfairly treated or subjected to malafide exercise of power by the State machinery. Para 87 reflects the background of facts of that particular case. There the question was of officiating on the post of Chief Secretary of the State of Tamil Nadu wherein the Supreme Court has also Signature Not Verified SAN observed that the displacement of Chief Secretary from his post in such a case Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH would not be arbitrary and it would not attract the inhibition of Articles 14 and 16. Date: 2022.03.03 12:34:04 IST 3 There valid reasons are given to show that the Chief Secretary has forfeited the confidence of the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister has legitimately, in the larger interest of administration, has shifted the Chief Secretary to another post.
Without embarking upon the discussions on the said judgment, it would be suffice to say that in the specific circumstances of this case which has been mentioned hereinabove, the said judgment would not apply. Here undisputedly, the respondent No.4 is senior to the petitioner as per the documents filed along with the caveat application. Under these circumstances, this Court finds no error in the impugned order and the fact that the petitioner had been initially appointed as Incharge Principal, from which post she was removed 18 days later was actually an aberration in the first place as rightfully, even if seniority is to be followed, respondent No.4 ought to have been posted as Incharge Principal. This is however not to say that either of the parties to this petition have a vested legal or constitutional right to be appointed as an Incharge Principal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the document filed along with caveat application has not been given to her. However, the document has been issued by the school where both the petitioner and the respondent are working. The document is something to which the petitioner herself has access to. Besides, the said document only goes to show that respondent No.4 is senior to the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not disputed the fact that she was appointed in the year 1998 whereas the documents submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 reflects that he was appointed in the year 1989. Therefore, merely on this ground, no additional time can be given to the petitioner.
Under these circumstances and in view of what has been discussed and held hereinabove, the petition is dismissed.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE Vikram Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH Date: 2022.03.03 12:34:04 IST