ORDER

The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 18/11/2022 contained in Annexure P-5.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner herein was appointed as Superintendent, Adivasi Balak Ashram, Amdari vide order dated 28/04/2016. The petitioner as belongs to reserved category, she was appointed as Superintendent in terms of circular issued by the State Government dated 16/03/2015 (Annexure P-3). It is contended by the counsel that now on the strength of impugned order dated 18/11/2022 private respondent Shri Sohan Singh is being sought to be handed over the charge of the Superintendent of Adivasi Balak Ashram, Amdari in place of the petitioner. Such action is not permissible in view of clause 1 of the circular dated 16/03/2015 as the same provides that in Adivasi Balak Ashram/Chatrawas only an employee belonging to reserved category i.e. SC/ST category can be assigned the charge of Superintendent. The private respondent being an employee belonging to General Category is not entitled to hold the charge of Superintendent. The E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, (1974) 4 SCC 3

impugned order deserves to be stayed.

Per contra, counsel for respondent no.6 upon entering appearance on

Caveat submits that in the present case, the petitioner was handed over the charge of Superintendent in the month of April, 2016. It is further contended by the counsel that in terms of the same circular dated 16/03/2015, the petitioner could not have been handed over the charge of the Boys Hostel. It is further contended by the counsel that the charge in terms of the said circular dated 16/03/2015 can be given for a period of three years and if the work is found satisfactory, the same can be extended for a period of two years. Meaning thereby, the total period for which an employee can hold the current charge of the Superintendent of Adivasi Balak Ashram is maximum 5 years. In the present case, the petitioner was handed over the charge of Superintendent, Adivasi Balak Ashram, Amdari in April, 2016 therefore, has completed more than 5 years in the said capacity and accordingly, while taking into consideration the number of complaints against the petitioner, the impugned order contained in Annexure P-5 has been passed and the same requires no interference as no right is accrued in favour of the petitioner.

Heard the rival submissions and perused the documents produced on record alongwith the petition.

Undisputedly, the petitioner herein was assigned the charge of

Superintendent, Adivasi Balak Ashram, Amdari vide order dated 28/04/2016 and on the strength of said order, the petitioner continued to hold the charge till issuance of impugned order dated 18/11/2022. Meaning thereby the present petitioner has completed more than 6 years in the capacity of Superintendent Incharge of Adivasi Balak Ashram, Amdari. The said tenure of the petitioner is more than maximum tenure of 5 years as provided in circular dated 16/03/2015. The petitioner was only handed over the current charge and the petitioner has continued on the basis of current charge for a period of more than 6 years. The petitioner cannot claim the said charge as a matter of right any further. The reliance as placed on the Apex Court in the case of E.P. Royappa (supra) is misplaced inasmuch as whatever right accrued to the petitioner on the strength of the circular dated 16/03/2015 contained in Annexure P-3 has already lost its efficacy as the petitioner has continued on the post for more than six years which is the period even the exceeding stipulated period provided in circular dated 16/03/2015. It is settled law that the charge of a particular post cannot be claimed as a matter of right by an employee and this decision is prerogative of the employer to confer the charge of a particular post to an employee. In the present case as the respondents have issued the order dated 18/11/2022 by which the charge of the post is being handed over to private respondent and in the sa