SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 9894

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Dr. Mohammad Kalim Ansari – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 4954/2022



Advocates:
Rakesh Kumar Jain,Advocate General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI ON THE 5th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 WRIT PETITION No. 4954 of 2022 Between:-

DR. MOHAMMAD KALIM ANSARI S/O LATE SHRI ABDUL AZIZ JI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEDICAL OFFICER (UNANI), SHASHKIYA UNANI DISPENSARY, ALAMGANJ DISTRICT BURHANPUR (M.P.) (WAS IN- CHARGE, DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER) R/O. 6, AZAD NAGAR, TIT ROAD, BURHANPUR 450331 (MP), (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI JUBIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE HOMEOPATHY(AYUSH) MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER GROUND FLOOR, D WING SATPUDA BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. DR. KAVITA GADWAL W/O NOT KNOWN OCCUPATION: INCHARGE DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER (SUBSTANTIVE POST AS AYURVEDIC MEDICAL OFFICER) DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICE, BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY MS. SHRISHTI KASHYAP, ADVOCATE WITH MS. SHIKHA SHARMA, PANEL LAWYER )

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN The petitioner has filed this petition while praying for following reliefs:-

1. It is most humbly prayed that appropriate writ/order/direction be issued thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 11.02.2022 passed by the respondent no.2, in the interest of justice.

2. That, it is further prayed that appropriate writ/order/direction be issued thereby directing the respondent no.2 to handover the charge to the petitioner and to comply with the circular dated 14.11.2014 and 4.11.1996 in letter and spirit, in the interest of justice.

3. Any other relief deemed fit and proper be also granted

4. Cost of the petition.

The facts as incorporated in the memo of writ petition reflect that the petitioner herein whose substantive post is Medical Officer (Unani) was handed over the charge of District Ayush Officer vide order dated 6/04/2017. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before this Court vide W.P. No. 27258/2021 challenging the validity of the M.P. Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Aayu) Sansodhan Adhiniyam, 2011 and claimed that the petitioner deserves to be superannuated at the age of 65 years. The Division Bench granted interim protection to the petitioner by passing an interim order dated 10/01/2022 in W.P. No. 27258/2021 permitting the petitioner to perform the duties till attaining the age of 65 years. Thereafter an order dated 11/2/2022 has been issued by which the charge of District Ayush Officer has been taken back from the petitioner and has been handed over to respondent no.3 who is junior to the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Department of General Administration, Bhopal has issued a circular dated 4/11/1996 which provides that the current charge of a post should be handed over to a senior employee Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN inasmuch as a senior employee should not be compelled to work under a junior employee. Therefore, submits that since the respondent no.3 is junior to the petitioner therefore, the current charge of the post of District Ayush Officer could not have been handed over to the respondent no.3. The counsel for the petitioner also contends that the authority has misinterpreted the interim order passed by the Division Bench in W.P. No. 27258/2021 thus, submits that order impugned be quashed.

Per contra, counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and also respondent no.3 submit that there is no substance in the petition inasmuch as the petitioner cannot claim current charge of a particular post as a matter of right. Moreover, it is further submitted that private respondent had taken over the charge way back on 14/02/2022 thus, no interference is warranted in absence of infringement of any actionable right. The charge has been handed over to respondent no.3 in view of administrative exigencies.

Having heard the rival submissions of the parties,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top