Pradeep Kumar Singh vs State Of M.P. & Others

Heard on the question of interim relief, as the respondent No.7 has already filed his reply and the State has yet to file its reply.

This petition has been filed against the order dated 8.6.2020 passed by the respondent No.4/District Education Officer, Sidhi whereby the petitioner has been relieved from the charge of the Principal of the Government School, Sharda District Sidhi and the charge has been handed over to the respondent No.7 Brijbihari Sharma.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not a mere taking of the charge from the petitioner but infact the impugned order is stigmatic in nature, as certain allegations have been levelled against the petitioner to take away the charge from him. It is further submitted that otherwise the petitioner as per his seniority was entitled to take the charge of the Principal, however, only to accommodate the respondent No.7 the aforesaid order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No.7 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner was only Incharge of the post of Principal and as such he has no vested right in the said post and on this ground only the petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. SM Sharma & others, reported in 1993 Supp (3) 252 to submit that the current duty charge of another post cannot be claimed as a right. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Mahendra Singh Vs. State of MP, decided on 2.3.2016 in WP No.4195/2016.

Learned counsel for the State has also opposed the prayer of the petitioner and while seeking time to file reply has also submitted that the petition is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner cannot claim the duty charge of the Principal as a mater of right.

On due consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the documents on record this Court finds that so far as the impugned order is concerned, the same is clearly stigmatic, as in the aforesaid order it is stated that the petitioner has brought the computer of the school to his house which has led to financial loss to the school, as the work of the school is being done from the market only. The petitioner has also placed on record the circulars dated 22.3.2020 and 12.4.2020 wherein it is provided by the State that all the Government Officers shall be allowed to operate from home only. In view of the aforesaid this Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie the petitioner has made out a case for interference and the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be said to be applicable in the present case where stigmatic order has been passed.

As a result, the prayer of interim relief is allowed and the operation of the impugned order dated 8.6.2020 is hereby stayed till next date of hearing. The respondents are hereby directed to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Principal Incharge of the school concerned.

List the case immediate after four weeks.

In the meantime the learned counsel for the State is directed to file reply positively.

Certified copy as per rules.