IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI

WRIT PETITION No.3492 of 2025

CHHATRAPAL SINGH THAKUR

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Ms. Malvika Paul, counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Anirrudh Malpani, counsel for the respondent No.1/State.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, counsel for the

respondent/intervenor

Reserved on: 10/12/2025 Post on : 07/01/2026

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

O R D E R

The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the

order dated 20/11/2024 passed by the District Education Officer, Dewas (MP), whereby the charge of Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Barkhedakayam was withdrawn from the petitioner and handed over to Respondent No.5.

2. It is the case of the petitioner’s that the petitioner was initially appointed as Upper Division Teacher on 30/09/1993 and was promoted to the post of Head Master (Middle School) on 30/06/2000. Vide order dated 21.09.2020, the petitioner was given the charge of Government Higher Secondary School, Jawasiya, which he discharged till the year

2024.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner was posted on the post of Lecturer on regular basis as per order dated 28/08/2024 and was serving at Government Higher Secondary School, Barkhedakayam, District Dewas (MP). On 11/11/2024, the District Education Officer, Dewas, entrusted the petitioner with the charge of Principal of the said school. However, vide impugned order dated 20/11/2024, the said charge was withdrawn and handed over to Respondent No.5. Aggrieved by the withdrawal of charge, the petitioner submitted representations and thereafter filed the present writ petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal, as the petitioner is senior to Respondent No.5 and the charge of Principal ought to have been continued with him. It was further submitted that withdrawal of charge without notice violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. Reliance was placed upon the judgments in Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1993 (2) MPWN 34 (Division Bench), to contend that non-conferral of higher post charge to a senior incumbent amounts to arbitrariness. Moreover in the case of Shivaji University, Kolhapur & Another v. Sanghmeshwar Educational Society & Others, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 401, to submit that administrative actions affecting service conditions must adhere to fairness and seniority principles. Further Judgments passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court at the Principal Seat in W.P. No. 27380/2024 and W.P. No. 25893/2024, wherein, according to the petitioner, similarly situated persons were granted relief. The petitioner has further relied upon departmental circulars dated 06/02/2008 and 03/07/2019, contending that where the post of Principal is vacant, charge ought to be given on the basis of seniority.

6. Per contra, Government Advocate opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner is substantively posted as Head Master (Middle School), whereas Respondent No.5 is working as a Lecturer, and the post of Principal is lying vacant. It was contended that conferring or withdrawing charge is a purely temporary administrative arrangement, which does not create any legal or enforceable right. It was further submitted that the petitioner has no right to challenge handing over of charge, as no promotion is involved and the employer is free to make administrative arrangements for smooth functioning of the institution.

7. Heard both parties at length and examined the entire record available.

8. This Court is of the considered opinion that the controversy involved in the present case lies in a narrow compass, namely, whether the petitioner can claim a legal or enforceable right to continue on the charge of the post of Principal merely because such charge was earlier entrusted to him