IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT

nd

ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 34357 of 2024 MAHENDRA PRASAD SHUKLA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri K. C. Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Shri Karnik Singh -

Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Rajesh Tiwari - Govt. Advocate for respondents-State.

Ms. Shobha Menon - Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Choubey -

Advocate for respondent no.6-intervener.

ORDER Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging order dated 28.10.2024 contained in Annexure-P/1. By said order, one Ramkrishna Tiwari/respondent no.5, Principal High School Sharda was made In-charge Principal Higher Secondary School and Block Education Officer, Sidhi.

2. Review petition was filed before the Court bearing No.2017/2025 and vide order dated 24.11.2025, direction was issued that petitioner namely Sureshdhar Dwivedi in review petition shall file an application for intervention in writ petition and order dated 17.09.2025 passed in writ petition was recalled and writ petition was restored to its original file.

Subsequently intervention application-I.A.No.23059/2025 was filed. The Court allowed the application for intervention and Sureshdhar Dwivedi was impleaded as respondent no.6 in writ petition pursuant to order passed in review petition.

3. In backdrop of aforesaid facts, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that respondent no.5 is junior to petitioner in gradation list. Name of respondent no.5 in gradation list of Principal High School is at Sr. No.1014 and that of petitioner is at Sr.No.661. Since petitioner is senior to respondent no.5, therefore, charge of Principal Higher Secondary School and Block Education Officer is to be given to petitioner.

4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for respondent no.6-Sureshdhar Dwivedi submitted that respondent no.6 is senior to petitioner as he was given charge of Higher Secondary School much earlier to petitioner. It is further submitted by learned Sr. Counsel that order dated 19.11.2024 is not subject matter of challenge in this writ petition, therefore, said order cannot be tested in this writ petition. Writ petition filed by petitioner has become infructuous since charge has been given to respondent no.6 by order dated 19.11.2024, which is not under challenge. Learned Sr. Counsel further relied upon judgment dated 01.02.2023 passed by Division Bench in the case of Naval Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. - Writ Appeal No.100/2023, wherein, it has been held that even though the person who has been granted the post of holding charge is junior to the petitioner that by itself cannot constitute a ground for invalidation. Ultimately it is a post for holding the charge and not a permanent post. In view of same, Division Bench refused to interfere in the order giving charge. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for respondent no.6 also relied upon judgment dated 22.09.2022 passed in the case of Mamta Soni Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. - W.P.No.21469/2022. In said case, a coordinate bench of this Court has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of State of Haryana Vs. S.M.Sharma reported in (1993) AIR SC 2273. In said case, it was held that no one has a right to ask for or stick to a current duty charge. The impugned order did not cause any financial loss or prejudice of any kind to Sharma. He had no cause of action whatsoever to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High court. It was a patent misuse of the process of the Court. Relying upon aforesaid judgment, the Court held that reasons have been given for withdrawal of additional charge and handing over charge to next senior most Teacher was in interest of better administration and, therefore, writ petition was dismissed. In view of aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.6 prayed for dismissal of writ petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for parties.