HC dismisses teacher’s plea regarding post

Source: The Hitavada      Date: 11 Nov 2017 11:32:33


Legal Correspondent,

A single bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising Justice Sujoy Paul has dismissed the petition filed by Jagat Lal Yadav challenging the orders directing him to join his substantive post of Varishtha Adhyapak, said that “No writ petition can be entertained for issuing the writ of mandamus to continue on the post on officiating basis. For these reasons, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.”

The petitioner challenged in this petition is made to the order dated on October 28, 2017 whereby the petitioner an officiating Principal is directed to join his substantive post of Varishtha Adhyapak. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that allegations mentioned in the order are factually incorrect. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice but without considering the said reply, impugned order has been passed which is arbitrary in nature.

Rahul Mishra, Government Advocate opposed the said relief and contended that petitioner has no legal right whatsoever to occupy the post on officiating/current charge basis. I have heard counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner’s substantive post is Varishtha Adhyapak and he was holding the post of Principal on officiating basis. 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 court.

High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the light of this judgment, it is clear that the writ petition cannot be entertained for issuing direction to continue on the post on officiating basis. If the petitioner is sent back to his substantive post, it will not cause any prejudice to him and his service conditions are not adversely affected. The petitioner’s seniority, pay and other service benefits will remain the same which is payable on the substantive post. This Court in the case of Dr V B Singh Baghel Vs. State of MP and others reported in 2016 held that no writ petition can be entertained for issuing the writ of mandamus to continue on the post on officiating basis. For these reasons, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, the single bench said. 

 

 

Contempt notices to Education Deptt officials

Legal Correspondent

A single bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising Justice Vandana Kasrekar has issued contempt notices to the Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Bhopal, Nirmla Patel, District Education Officer, Balaghat And Rashmi Jha, Principal, Government Higher Secondary School Lalbarra, Balaghat for the non-compliance to the court’s order issued in writ petition. The single bench has issued notices to the respondents asked them to file their reply before the court within four weeks. The single bench has heard the contempt petition filed by Nikhil Kumar Demarwarl working as Upper Division Teacher, Government Excellence Higher Secondary School Lalbarra, Balaghat against the Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Bhopal, Nirmla Patel, District Education Officer, Balaghat And Rashmi Jha, Principal, Government Higher Secondary School Lalbarra, Balaghat.

Earlier the petitioner filed writ petition before the court, assailed the order dated on July 27, 2017 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Government Excellence Higher Secondary School Lalbarra to Government Middle School Bhrveli. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has undergone the operation of Hernia on August 14, 2017 and therefore, he is unable to comply with the transfer order. In this regard, he has already preferred a representation to the Competent Authority which is still pending.At this stage, the Counsel for the petitioner submits that his pending representation may be directed to be decided sympathetically taking into consideration that he has been recently operated.

On the other hand, Government Advocate has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by the petitioner and assure that in case, directions are issued, the same shall be considered sympathetically.After hearing the writ petition and parties, the high court had disposed off the petition with the direction to the respondent authorities to decide the pending representation as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue at Lalbarra till the representation is decided. But the respondent authorities did not take any action in this regard. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this contempt petition before the high court.