Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abha Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 August, 2017
WP-11283-2017
(ABHA PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
28-08-2017
Smt. Malti Dadariya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Rawat, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents No.1 to 4/State.
Shri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 on caveat.
Heard on admission.
The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 14.07.2016; whereby, additional charge of Warden of Girls Hostel, is withdrawn from the petitioner and in lieu thereof it is given to the respondent No.5. Criticizing this order learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on officiating basis as Warden for a period of three years. Three years period is not over from giving such officiating charge. Thus, petitioner's replacement by private respondent is bad in law.
Prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the other side. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has pointed out that Coordinate Bench in similar matterW. 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.
If petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order, she may prefer representation before the Departmental Authorities. With aforesaid observation, petition stands dismissed.
(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE loretta