Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sandhya Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September, 2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 8458 of 2013
Smt. Sandhya Mishra.
Vs.
Stat of Madhya Pradesh & others.
For Petitioner : Mr. Anoop Saxena, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Ankit Agrawal, Govt. Advocate.
Order posted for: 01.09.2017.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
-:- 2 -:-
W.P. No. 8458 of 2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Case No. W.P. No.8458/2013 Parties Name Smt. Sandhya Mishra.
Vs. Stat of Madhya Pradesh & others.
Date of Judgment 01/09/17 Bench Constituted Single Bench Judgment delivered by Justice Sujoy Paul
Whether approved for reporting Yes/No Name of counsels for parties Petitioner: Mr. Anoop Saxena, Advocate Respondent/State: Mr. Ankit Agrawal, Government Advocate.
Law laid down Significant paragraph numbers (Order) 01.09.2017 This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 06.04.2013, whereby the additional charge of Warden was withdrawn from the petitioner and she is directed to perform her duties on the substantive post of Assistant Teacher.
2. Mr. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner criticized this order by contending that (i) the impugned order is passed without applying the principles of natural justice; (ii) the petitioner's appointment was in consonance with the policy (Annexure-P/6); (iii) the petitioner has an enforceable right to continue as Warden; (iv) Ass. Warden was responsible for the incident.
3. Prayer is opposed by Mr. Agrawal, learned G.A.
-:- 3 -:-
W.P. No. 8458 of 20134. In the opinion of this Court, the point involved in this case is no more res integra. In the matter of Abha Pandey vs. State of M.P. & others, W.P. No.11283/2017 decided on 28.08.2017, this Court opined as under:
"Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has pointed out that Coordinate Bench in similar matter W. P. No.11413/2017 (Smt Anita Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh) held that petitioner's substantive post is Adhyapaka, and she was given additional charge on the post of Warden and therefore, petitioner cannot claim any right to remain on the said post.
Admittedly, in the present case also the petitioner's substantive post is Assistant Teacher and she was given the additional charge of the post of Warden. The core issue is whether the petitioner has any enforceable right on the post of Warden on which she is working on officiating basis.
Curtains on this aspect are finally drawn by Supreme Court in AIR 1993 SC 2273 (State of Haryana v. S. M. Sharma and others); the relevant portion reads as under"
"11- We are constrained to say that the High Court extended its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to a frivolity. 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 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."
The said judgment of Supreme Court was followed by this Court. In 2016 (3) MPLJ 152(V. B. Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh), this Court came to hold that on the basis of alleged violation of administrative instructions, no enforceable right is being created to continue on officiating basis. Accordingly, in my view petitioner has no legal vested or constitutional right to continue on officiating basis. No case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution."
[Emphasis Supplied]
5. In the light of aforesaid order, I find no reason to interfere in this matter. Petitioner has no enforceable right to remain posted as Warden. No fault can be found in the action of the respondents which is administrative in nature. The decision has been taken in order to ensure that hostel functions properly. Resultantly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Sujoy Paul)
s@if Judge