2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2916
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
ON THE 4th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 27876 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
DR. JOGENDRA SINGH THAKUR S/O SHRI GOVIND
SINGH THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
WORKING AS IN CHARGE DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER
SAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ADITYA VEER SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AYUSH DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
THE
COMMISSIONER
AYUSH
DEPARTMENT
MADHYA PRADESH DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
DR. RAJUL SINGHAI HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL
OFFICER GOVERNMENT MEDICAL HOSPITAL
SAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ARNAV TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE AND SHRI
YUVRAJ VAIDYA - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
Aditya Veer Singh,Advocate General
With the consent, finally heard.
2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
takeS exception to the order dated 28.11.2022 (Annexure P/2), whereby
1
Signed by: PARITOSH
KUMAR
Signing time: 10/6/2023
3:05:26 PM
Signature Not Verified
officiating charge of District Ayush Officer is withdrawn from the petitioner and
given to respondent No.3.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is holding the post of Ayush
Medical Officer, whereas the respondent No.3 is a Homeopathic Medical
Officer. As per the statutory recruitment rules namely M.P. Ayush
Department (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2013 (Recruitment
Rules), the petitioner is holding the feeder post for promotion to the post of
District Ayush Officer, whereas the post of respondent No.3 is not a feeder
post for the promotional post of District Ayush Officer. Although, a person
having degree in homeopathy is eligible for consideration as direct recruitee
District Ayush Officer, respondent No.3 cannot claim eligibility for direct
recruitment for twin reasons (i) he has crossed the maximum age of 40 years
and (ii) he does not have degree in the subject of homeopathy. In view of
Indore Bench order passed in W.P. No.14632/2020 (Vijay Kumar Sharma
vs. State of M.P.) and other connected matters, the person not holding the
post in feeder cadre cannot be appointed on officiating basis on the higher post.
4. Shri Aditya Veer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner by placing
reliance on a Co-ordinate Bench order passed in W.P. No.4999/2023 (Dr.
Kailash Narayan Mevafarosh vs. State of M.P. and others) submits that
the similar controversy is decided and it was held that the additional charge of
District Ayush Officer cannot be given to a person, who cannot be promoted
on the said post. The case of present petitioner is better than the case of Dr.
Kailash Narayan (supra) because present petitioner is senior to respondent
No.3. He placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa
vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another AIR 1974 SC 555.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State supported the impugned order.
2
Signed by: PARITOSH
KUMAR
Signing time: 10/6/2023
3:05:26 PM
Signature Not Verified
6. Shri Yuvraj Vaidya submits that petitioner cannot claim benefit of
officiating promotion by filing a writ petition. The reliance is placed on the order
passed by this Court in Dr. V.B. Singh Baghel v. State of M.P. (2016) 3
MPLJ 152 and in W.P. No.15333 of 2019 (Dr. Murli Manohar Agrawal
vs. State of M.P. and two others) decided on 30.08.2019 and in W.P.
No.7965 of 2022 (Dr. B.L. Mishra vs. State of M.P. and others) decided
on 06.05.2022.
7. No other point is pressed.
8. Parties were heard at length.
9. The first and foremost question needs to be decided is whether this
writ petition can be entertained whereby the officiating charge from the
petitioner was taken away by order dated 28.11.2022 (Annexure P/2).
10. This Court in Dr. V.B. Singh Baghel (supra) followed the
judgment of Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. S.M. Sharma and others
AIR 1993 SC 2273. The petitioner therein (S.M. Sharma) was substantively
holding the post of Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) and was given the current
duty charge of the post of Executive Engineer. The said charge was
subsequently withdrawn from S.M. Sharma. The Apex Court after considering
the relevant rules came to hold that 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 to S.M. Sharma. Thus, he had no cause of action whatsoever to
invoke the writ jurisdiction.
11. The view so taken in S.M. Sharma (supra) and Dr. V.B. Singh
Baghel (supra) was followed by Co-ordinate Bench in Dr. Murli Manohar
Agrawal (supra) and Dr. B.L. Mishra (supra).
3
Signed by: PARITOSH
KUMAR
Signing time: 10/6/2023
3:05:26 PM
Signature Not Verified
12. Shri Adityaveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken
pains to submit that neither in S.M. Sharma (supra) nor in the aforesaid
judgments of t