IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI ON THE 2^nd OF NOVEMBER, 2022 WRIT PETITION No. 24702 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

DR. R.K. VISHWAKARMA S/O SHRI BHIKAJI VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CHILD SPECIALIST COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, KHIRKIYA DISTRICT HARDA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI K.C. GHILDIYAL, SENIOR COUNEL ASSISTED WITH SHRI MANEESH KHOLIA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE COMMISSIONER HEALTH SERVICES, MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. THE CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER HARDA DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. DR. RAM SONI, MEDICAL OFFICER COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE KHIRKIYA DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI V.P. TIWARI, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 14/10/2022 Signature Not Verified (Annexure P/4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who is a child specialist is senior to respondent No.4 and therefore charge of post of Block Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Khirkiya could not have been handed over to respondent No.4 who is junior to the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that handing over of current charge of a particular post to a junior employee, leads to administrative hard-ship and also heart burning to the senior employee. In the present case, the petitioner being a senior employee is entitled to hold the charge of the post of Block Medical Officer, khirkiya. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that if the order impugned is implemented, the petitioner would be compelled to work under junior, therefore, submits that in view of the law down by the Apex Court in the case of E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1974) 4 SCC 27 and also in the case of Government of A.P. Vs. A.V. Venugopala Rao reported in (1995) 1 SCC 179, the impugned order deserves to be stayed.

The petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. Madhu Jain Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

reported in 2005 SCC online Del 688.

Therefore the petitioner's contention, on the strength of the aforesaid decisions, is that a senior employee should be given the charge of a current post and his submission that in view of the aforesaid the order impugned deserves to be quashed.

Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the State has issued circular dated 15/07/2022 which has already been filed by the petitioner as Annexure P/2, and a perusal of the said circular reflects that it is being observed that the post of District Health Officer, District Leprosy Officer, Signature Not Verified District Malaria officer, etc. are being occupied by the specialist and since they are engaged in administrative work most of the time, the proper functioning of the hospital gets affected for want of services of specialist to needy patients. Thus, while taking note of circular dated 15/07/2022, an order dated 18/08/2022 was passed which is contained as Annexure P/3 by which the charge of the post of Block Medical Officer, Community Health Center, khirkiya which was with the petitioner earlier, was taken over from him and was to be handed over to one Dr. Naveen Chaudhary. It is further contended by the respondents that Dr. Naveen Chaudhary did not assume the said charge, hence subsequently an order dated 14/10/2022 (Annexure P/4) is issued. It is also submitted by the counsel for respondents that the petitioner has since not challenged the order dated 18/08/2022 (Annexure P/3) therefore, he is precluded from assailing the subsequent order dated 14/10/2022. It is also contended by the counsel for the respondents that the order impugned dated 14/10/2022 (Annexure P/4) is merel