< G^ 1/ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR G) W.P. fS) N0. ^g^O /2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ..•J^ .^'^ ^^••- ^ ^y ^>-" ov 1] ^ 2] .<^' 3]. 4] 5] Budhram Patel^ S/o. Shyam Kumar Patel, aged about 56 years, R/o. Block Education Officer, Dabhra, Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, ^chool Education, Department, ^D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur., District Raipur (CG) Director, Public Educational Directorate, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Janjgir- Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) G.R. Jatwar, Lecturer^ Govt. Higher Secondary School, Singhara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) R.R; Bhagat, Principal^ Govt. Higher Secondary School, Turekala, District Raigarh (C.G.) At present posted as a Block Education Officer, Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA \p^' HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SINGLB BBNCIi: HON»BLE8HRI MANINDRA MOHAN 8HRIVASTAVA.J. Writ Petition (81 No.6900/2009 PETITIONBR Budhraai Patel RBSPONDBNTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers Petition uader Article 226 of the Coastitutioa ofladia O R D E R ^ PQST ON 2.'1TJULY, 2010 Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ;y^^ \p -^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR II lii. IS tlll 11 il! IB Hl ^::r L SINGL^ BENCH : HpN'BLE 8HRI MANENDRA MOHAN SHRIVA8TAVA,J. Writ Petition (Sl No.6900/2009 PETITIONBR RESPONDBNTS Budhram Patel Versus State of Chhattisgarh & otliers Petition under Article 226 ofthe <^>nstitution oflndia Appearance: Shri Maiioj Paranjpe, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murhty, Dy, Advocate General wifh Mrs, Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for fhe State/respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri Sushobhit Singh, counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5. ORDBR (Passed on ^ .07.2010) 1. By this petition, ftie petitioner has assailed legaUty and validity of orders dated 22.8.2009 (Annexurc P-1) and 11.11.2009 (Annexurc P-2). Facts offhe case necessaxy for decision ofthe present petition are that fhe petitioner while workiag as Block Education Officer, was posted as Block Education Ofl5cer, Dabhravide order dated 25.7.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by Distdct Education Ofiicer, Jangjir-Champa m compUance offhe order dated 30.6.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the State Goverament, Petitioner after being reUeved joiaed at Dabhra. Vide order dated 6th August, 2009 (Annexure P-6), petitionerwas pronioted from his substaative post of Lecturer to fhe post of Principal and posted at Goverament High School, Singhara, Block- Malkharoda. Petitioner submitted aa application on 20th Augiist 2009 to fhe State /v ife-.^ - & 1?5:J ^, "^^^'7 ^ ~^.,.^.^i -2- ^ Goveninient fhat ia so far as his posting as Priacipal, Govt. High School, Siaghara is concemed, the saine may be modified and he may be posted as Block Education Officer, Dabhra, Vide impugned order dated 22.8.2009 (Annexure P-1), State Govemment modi&ed its earMer order dated 6.8,2009 (Annexure P-6) aad respondent No.4, who was already working as Lccturer at Govenunent High School Siaghara, was posted as Pnncipal in place of fhe petitioner. However, no postiag in respect of petitioner was given. Petitioner preferred a representation on 24,8.2009 (Annexure P-7) praying fhat as per his request niade earUer vide his appUcation dated 20.8.2009, he may be posted as Block Education Ofi&cer, Dabhra. Petitioner's applicatiou was forwarded by the Distdct Education Ofiicer to the Director, PubUc Instructions, Raipur vide his memo dated 25.8.2009 (Anaexure P-9), Thereafter, aaofher order dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P-2), mipugned ia this petition, was issued by which respondent No,5 was posted as Block Education Officer, Dabhara, where fhe petitioner was already worknig, 2. Aggrieved by fhe aforesaid two orders ie. order dated 22.8.2009 & ll,ll,2009y petitioner has approached this Court Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner subinitted that fhough fhe petitioner subniitted representation on 20,8.2009 prayiag for inodification of his posting upon proiaotion, oider of proinotion and postmg dated 6.8/2009 was inodified, postuig respondent No.4 as Priacipal at High SchooL Singhara, but no order ia respect offhe petitioner was passed, It is also subiaitted fhat fhough fhe petitioner had requested for his posting as Block Education Officer at Dabhara, respondent No.5 was posted at Block Education Officer Dabhara, thus, leavmg the petitioner without aay place to work. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner argued that ~^ -3- L°< iiapugued orders have been passed arbitrarily, as aa act of harassxnent to the petitioner, as the petitioner haviag been pronioted to fhe post of Prmcipal was entiUed to a substaative posting on fhe post of Principal, but at Higher Secondary School, Siaghara, fhe respondent No.4 was posted, aiid on fhe post of Block Education OfHcer, Dabhara, respondent No,5 was posted. Learaed counsel for tlie petitioner further submits that fhe petitioner is beiag compeUed to haadover charge of Block Edzication Ofiicer at Dabhara, which is iUegal and arbitrary. 3, During pendency of the petition, Distnct Education Officer, Janjgir passed an order on 4.12,2009 (Annexure R-l) by which the petitioner has been shown as Lecturer aiid posted as Assistant Block Education Of&cer, Dabhara. 4, Leanied counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3/State subxnitted that tlie petitioner inade aa appUcation on 20.8.2009 requestmg for his postuig on fhe vacant post of Block Education Officer, Dabhara iii place ofhis posting on promotion at High School, Smghara, Therefore, the posting of fhe petitioner was amended vide order dated 22,8.2009. It is submitted that vide order dated 11.11,2009 (Annexure P-2), respondent No.5 was posted as Block Education Officer, Dabhra. Petitioner has not haaded over fhe charge of Block Education Officer, Malkharoda to respondent No.5. 5. Learaed counsel for respondents No, 4 & 5 argued fhat fhey have coinpUed wifh fhe order of Govemiaent aad have jouied at their respective places of posting as ordered vide impugned order dated 22.8.2009 aad 11.11.2009 and tliat petitioner, during the pendency of fhe petition, has now been giveu postmg as Assistmit Block Education -4- Ofi&cer, Dabhara, whereas fhe charge of the office of Block Education Officer, Dabhara has beeu given to respondent No.5, who has assumed fhe charge aiid workuig. 6. I have considered fhe rival subiaissions inade by leamed coiuisel for fhe parties aad penised fhe records. 7. Fronx tlie pleadiags,aiid docuinents on record, it is clear that petitioner was pronioted to the post of Prmcipal vide order dated 6,8,2009 (Annexure P-6) aad posted as Priacipal, Goveranient High School, Siaghara. Petitioner requested for niodt&cation of his posting pursuant to proinotion order aad requested fhat io. place of his posting as Principal at Siaghara, he niay be posted as Block Education Ofiicer, Dabhara. It was wifhin fhe doniam of authonty of the respondents/ State to consider the said request aad to take appropriate decision on the same. However, tiie respondents/State has taken a pecuUar stand, which is quite arbitrary. It has been submitted that as fhe petitioner has subndtted a request for inodi&cation of his postmg upon proiaotiou, by order dated 22.8.2009, respondent No.4 was posted as Principal, Govt. High School, Siaghara, However, State is absolutely silent aad it has nowhere been stated as to why consequential miodi&cation order of posting of fhe petitioner was not issued. In fact, the State Govemiaent has not given aay postiing to the petitioner. It was wifhm the jurisdiction of fhe State Goverament to accept or reject fhe petitioner's prayer for inodi&cation of posting pursuaat to proniotion, However, ia fhe present case ia so far as petitiouer's postiag upon proniotion as Prmcipal, Govt. High School, Siaghara is conceraed, it has been niodified aad rcspondent No. 4 has been posted ia his place, but fhere is nofhing in order dated 22.8.2009 1 '^. ^ J: / ^ ^^•^ -5- [° •I or in any ofher order of fhe State Govenuiient to show as to where the pelitioner is now posted, If tiie Govenunent inodi&ed earUer order of posting upon proinotion, acting on fhe request letter dated 20,8.2009 of fhe petitioner, consequential order modifyiag petitioner's posting ought to be passed, posting him eifher as Block Education Ofiicer, Dabhara which was lying vacaiit at fhat time or at such ofher place as fhe State Goveniinent would have considered ia fhe exigency of the admmistration aad pubUc iaterest. However, fhis has not been done, which is clearly arbitraxy, 8, WhUe ia the retum respondent/State professes to act upon petitioner's representation dated 20.8.2009 and passed order dated 22,8.2009, later on, vide iaipugned order dated 11.11.2009, respondent No.5 was posted as Block Education Officer, Dabhara again. wifhout passiag any order as to where fhe petitioner would go. In paragraph -5 of the returo., respondeut have aven'ed that petitioner had niade aa application ou 20.8.2009 requesting to post him. agaiast fhe post of Block Education Officer, Dabhara ia Ueu of his present postmg by way of aiDiendnieut aiid vide order dated 22.8,2009 posting offhe petitioner was aniended. However, a perusal oforder dated 22.8.2009 shows fhat uo postiiig was given to the petitioner as Block Education Officer, Dabhara at ia aa.y ofher place, 9. Order dated 4,12.2009 (Annexure R-l) which has been passed durmg peudexicy of fhe petition by fhe Block Education Ofiicer is only a temporaiy arrangement to post fhe petitioner as Assistaiit Block Education OfELcer, -6- ^ 10. Petitioner haviag been promoted on fhe post of Principal, vide order dated 6,8.2009, is entiUed to a substaative posting on the post of Principal, Respondent/State has not given any postiag to the petitioner, which is not only arbitrary, but clearly illegal. The niaaner in which the order dated 22.8.2009 aad 11.11.2009 in so far as posting on fhe post of Principal, High School, Siaghara aad Block Education Officer, Dabhara have been passed, speaks voluiae of arbitraiy exercise of power wifhout appUcation of mind. Though fhe petitioner has been promoted on fhe post of Prmcipal and posted as Prmcipal, High School Siaghara, fhe consequence of subsequent two iinpugned orders dated 22.8.2009 and 11.11.2009 is that, they left the petitioner without any substantive posting on fhe post of Priacipal or aay ofher equivalent and iaterchaageable post 11. Petitioner was posted as Block Education Officer, Dabhara by fhe District Education Ofi&cer m compliaace of order dated 30th June, 2009 (Aunexure P-3) passed by the State Govemment. As fhe petitioner was pronioted as Principal vide order dated 6,8.2009, without givuig Tnim a proper posting order on the post of Principal, it was clearly illegal on fhe part of respondent to post respondent No.5 in place of petitioner. Wifhout there beiag aay posting of fhe petitioner on tlie post of Principal, petitioner could not be compeUed to work as Assistaiit Block Education Ofiicer, as he is entiUed to be posted on fhe post of Principal or equivalent post i. e Block Education Ofiicer. In appUcation dated 26.4.2010 (I.A.No,5) for issuaace of appropriate direction field by fhe petitioner, it has been stated that fhe pay-scale ofthe post ofAssistaiit Block Education OflEicer is less thaa fhe pay-scale of Prmcipal. It has Tw ^^^w^^ -7- ••-^•fts^^ [a> also been stated that petitioner is only bemg paid fhe pay-scale of Lecturer. 12. In view of tlie aforesaid discussions, respondent/State is directed to pass appropriate order wifh regard to petitioner's posting on fhe post of Prmcipal or any other equivalent aiid mterchaageable post, withia a period of 1 nionfh froia fhe date ofreceipt ofcopy offhis order. 13. Petitioner shaU also be entiUed to salaiy for fhe post of Prmcipal consequent upon his proraotion vide order dated 6.8.2009, As th.e petitioner reiaamed deprived of postiag as Principal on account of arbitrary actions of respondeuts/ State aad Distdct Education OJBicer, Jaajgir Champa, fhe salary on fhe post of Principal shaU al^o be paid to fhe petitioner treatiag hiai pronxoted as Principalw.e.f 6.8.2009 14, Petition is accordiagly allowed to fhe extent aiid m fhe maaner iadicated above. 15. Vide order dated 12.3,2010, this Court recorded that primafade, it is estabUshed that fhe Distdct Education Ofiicer Jaajgir-Champa has attempted to defeat fhe purpose offiUng the petition by not filmg retura aiid by passuig aa order which negates the reMef sought by the petitioner aad directed Distorict Education Ofl&cer, Jaiygir-Chanipa to file aa affidavit as to why conteinpt proceediags inay not be iiutiated agamst him for wiUful defiaace of tiie order passed by fhis Court as weU as mterfering wifh the admiaistration ofjustice, An affidavit has been fiUled by fhe District Education Officer on 30,3.2010 stating ttie circuinstaaces under which retura could not be filed, Takiag iato consideration the statements in the affidavit axtd the ftodiag recorded ia tliis order fbat order dated 04-12-2009 is only a ^ "^^^y -8- vvo temporary arraagement, no fiirther proceediags m that direction is warranted. No order as to costs. Praveen Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^