Balram Sharma vs State of M.P. and others

Hon''ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has called in question the validity and correctness of Annexure-P/1 dated 21/03/2005, whereby petitioner''s additional charge as Principal was withdrawn and he was directed to work on his substantive post of Teacher. Shri Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed this order on following grounds:- (1) before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing is granted to him. (2) petitioner was given additional charge as Principal (Annexure-/P3) by District Education Officer and he could not have been deprived from same by the Chairman of governing body. (3) serious allegations are made against the petitioner in Annexure-P/1, which are incorrect in the light of Annexure-P/9.

Ms. Patankar, learned Government Advocate supported the order and submits that petitioner''s substantive post is Teacher and he has no legal right to continue to hold the additional charge of Principal. She further submits that this is prerogative of the governing body of the management to run their institution as per their administrative exigency and the Government has nothing to say about it.

Per Contra, Shri S.K. Jain learned counsel supported the order Annexure-P/1 and submits that no allegations were found proved against the petitioner, which are clear from Annexure-P/1 and it was decided that an enquiry would be conducted against the petitioner and one Shri Nimgaokar to decide their degree of involvement. In other words, Shri Jain submits that enquiry was decided to be conducted to fix the responsibility on the erring officer and it is incorrect to say that any stigma is casted on the petitioner by Annexure-P/1. He submits that it is purely an administrative order. In absence of violation of any legal provision or petitioner''s legal right, no interference is warranted in day to day administrative proceedings of the management. Although, Shri Katare stated that petitioner is senior most in the institution, it is denied by Shri S.K. Jain.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

This is trite law that writ can be issued when a legal, constitutional, statutory or vested right of a person is infringed or taken away. It is not in dispute that petitioner''s substantive post is Upper Division Teacher and he was given additional charge of Principal. The petitioner was never promoted on the substantive post of Principal. Thus, the statutory or legal right of the petitioner is only to hold the substantive post of Upper Division Teacher.

A careful perusal of the document dated 08/09/2003 Annexure- P/3 shows that the District Education Officer has narrated and taken into account that petitioner was given additional charge on the basis of seniority by the institution itself and petitioner was not given additional charge by the direction of District Education Officer. However, in the second Para, the District Education Officer directed that the work of in-charge of Principal be continued on the basis of seniority with the petitioner. At the stage when Annexure-P/3 was issued and there was no need felt to conduct enquiry. The school management later-on decided to conduct an enquiry which is clear from order Annexure-P/1 and for conducting a fair enquiry, decided to keep Shri Nimgaokar and Balram away from the additional charge of Principal.

The question is whether petitioner can claim additional charge as a matter of legal right. This question is no more res-integra in view of judgment of Supreme Court reported in State of Haryana Vs. S.M. Sharma and others, . In Para 11, the Apex Court held as under:-

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.

In the considered opinion of this Court, no legal, constitutional, statutory or vested right of the petitioner is taken away or infringed by issuance of Annexure-P/1. Petitioner has no legal right to continue on additional charge or current charge of Principal. It is the prerogative of the employer to run the institution as per their administrative exigency. The reason assigned for issuance of Annexure-P/1 are also plausible. This is also settled in law that another view is possible, is not a ground for interference in administrative orders. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another Vs. Sanjeev @ Bittoo, Haryana Financial Corporation and Another Vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Another, I am also unable to hold that any stigma is casted on the petitioner. In all fairness, the institution has decided to conduct an enquiry and which is their prerogative and it is within their province. There is no scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. I am also unable to hold that order Annexure-P/1 is without jurisdiction because microscopic reading of Annexure-P/3, makes it crystal clear that earlier petitioner was granted additional charge by the institution itself. Even if petitioner is senior most, does not mean he has a legal right to continue on additional charge. If the department decides to conduct enquiry and for conducting enquiry in a fair manner, it is necessary to remove the petitioner from the additional charge, no fault can be found in such an action. Resultantly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The interim order granted by this Court shall stand vacated. No costs.