Madhya Pradesh High Court
Govind Ballabh Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 November, 2017
1 Writ Petition No.1311/2014
(Govind Ballabh Vs. State of M.P. & Others)
Gwalior, dated: 06.11.2017
Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuwanwshi, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
Shri A.K. Nirankari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the
respondents/State.
Being aggrieved by the order of repatriating the petitioner from the post of Sahayak Pariyojna Samanvayak, Vitta vide Annexure P/1 dated 18.02.2014, this petition has been preferred.
Counsel for the petitioner has raised the solitary contention that the order impugned has been passed by the Commissioner, Rajya Shiksha Kendra Avam Sachiv, School Shiksha, Bhopal, as per the decision taken by Rajya Stariya Niyukti Samiti dated 07.02.2014 though his posting on deputation was after facing the interview and a selection process. It is further his contention that as per order of deputation for the post of Sahayak Pariyojna Samanvayak, Vitta, the order of repatriation could be passed by the Govt. and not by the Samiti or by the Commissioner, Rajya Shiksha Kendra. Therefore, the order impugned Annexure P/1 is illegal and without jurisdiction After having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I find must substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is to be noted here that the deputation of the petitioner on the post of Sahayak Pariyojna Samanvayak Vitta is after the advertisement and interview as reveal from the deputation order dated 13.12.2005. In the order, it has been specifically mentioned that for the post of Assistant Project Coordinator (Finance), right to repatriate is vested with the Government. As argued 2 Writ Petition No.1311/2014 by the counsel for the respondents that the order Annexure P/1 dated 18.02.2014 has been passed as per the decision of Rajya Stariya Niyukti Samiti is of no relevance particularly the said decision is to be taken by the State Government. To explain the authority of the Commissioner, Rajya Stariya Niyukti Samiti, no explanation is available in the return.
In view of forging, in my considered opinion, the order of repatriation passed by the Commissioner is lacking with the authority, therefore, such order is hereby quashed. However, it is open to the respondents to pass a fresh order of repatriation by the competent authority, if administrative exigency so requires.
In view of the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed and disposed of as indicated above.
(J. K. Maheshwari) Judge mani