IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 27 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 50384 of 2025 SUDHIR KUMAR SAXENA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Chandra Prakash Sharma - learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri K.K. Prajapati -learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi- learned Senior counsel with Shri Dharmendra Singh Raghuvanshi -learned counsel for the caveator.

ORDER

1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 23/12/2025 (Annexure-

P/1) in the instant writ petition whereby the charge of the post of District Education Officer, Morena has been taken from him and is given to respondent no.6. The petitioner has also prayed for direction to the respondents to continue him on the post of District Education Officer, District- Morena (M.P.).

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer in the School Education Department. He was promoted to the post of Principal of Higher Secondary School on 28/08/2015. Further, he was posed in the office of Joint Director, Education, Gwalior vide order dated 16/10/2024. He was then given the current charge of the post of the District Education Officer, Morena. By way of the impugned order dated 23/12/2025, the charge of the post of the District Education Officer was taken from him and has been given to respondent no.6 and, therefore, being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order alleging that the order violates the basic principle of service jurisprudence inasmuch as no reason has been assigned for passing the impugned order. It is his submission that the petitioner has a clean and unblemished service record and respondent no.3 while passing the impugned order did not mention even a single infirmity or discrepancy in his work. Learned counsel further submitted that under Rule 6(d) of the Madhya Pradesh State and Subordinate Education Services (School Branch) Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2016 introduced on 20/12/2022, the charge of higher post can be given on to a suitable Government servant who holds qualification and eligibility on the basis of seniority-cum merit. It is his submission that respondent no.6 is much junior to the petitioner inasmuch as he was appointed as UDT on 12/09/1989 whereas petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in 1989. Learned counsel, thus, submitted that withdrawing charge of the post of DEO from the petitioner without assigning any reason is illegal and the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6, who appeared on caveat, justified the impugned order and raised a preliminary objection with regard to the petitioner's maintaining the present writ petition. As per his submission, the petitioner does not have any right to hold current charge of post of DEO and in absence of any right, he cannot aske for issuance of any writ from this Court. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the State of Haryana Vs. S.M. Sharma & others reported in 1993 Supp(3) SCC 252. He further submitted that it is the prerogative of employer to give current charge of higher post to a suitable employee. He further submitted that in the cadre of Principal, Higher Secondary School, respondent no.6 is much senior to the petitioner and, therefore, on this ground also the impugned order is justified.

5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State, on advance notice, supported the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner does not have any right to hold the current charge of the post and, therefore, the impugned order does not warrant any interference.

6. Considered the arguments on admission.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was given the charge of the post of the District Education Office