'WSIE ss^s •<*-!" !.-i--'{"SVS^ IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. fS VNO. ^ / 2007 PETITIONER RESPaNDENTS ^^n-CO?l ^^s^ s.s^ ^-Hanuman Prasad Vaishnav S/o. Late Shri Raghunath Das Vaishnav, aged about 47 rears, resident of Village & Post Siladehi, Tahsil Champa, District. - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS :>r State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Departrinent of Human Resources, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) *^1 2.^ The Collector, Janjgir- Champa, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 3^ District Project Officer, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ^, District PFOject Co-ordinator,' Rajeev .' Gandhi Shiksha MissiQn, Janjgir —Champai :(C.G;^.. . , . . , :. , ,.:.-.'.: ;. 5/ The President, Janpad Panchayat Jarijgir-Champa (G.G.) )A T ^&^ Shri Ratan Chand Dewangan, Assistant Teacher Birra, Tahsi] and District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) % WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTlON OF INDIA B CB maH CtWRT OF CaniATHSQARH AT BUABTOR W. P. (81 Mo. 814 of2007 Petitioncr Haiiiunan Prasad Vafahnay Versus RcspoHdents : State ofChhattisgaA and ofhera 8B: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Sattoh K. Aanihotri, J Present- Mr. Gautam Khetoapal, Advocate &r the petitioncr. Ms. Deepali Pandey, Paiiel Lawycr for State/i?espondcnts No. lto4. Nonc appears for fhe ofher respondents. ORDBR (Passed on this 12A nayofPebniaiy, 2007) 1. By fhis petition fhc petitioner impugas tfae oiri.er dated 27.1.2007 (Aanexure P/l), passed by the Rcspoitdent No.3- CoBcctor m the capacity ofDistrict Projcct OfiBcer, Rsgeev Gandhi Sfaiksha Mission, Jaajgir Champa, whereby (he petitionerjias been. rclieved fi»mfhe charge of Shankul Prabhari, Birra and he was directed to peifonn his duties on thc prigmal post m Sonadah SchooL By ftus oidcr the chai^e of Shaiikul Praibhari, Birra. has been gwen to fhc respondent No.6. ^ 2. Accordic^ to the petitioner, he is basicalfy an Assistant Teacber, appomted ia tfac year 1980. Under the policy of Serva Shiksha Abhyan, Sanlcul Kendras were created. As per Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission for supervisicai ofSaakulKeDdras flie CtoBectorte autfaorizcd to appoint teachera as Prabhan (In-chsage) of a Sankul Kendra. BarMer vide order dated 6.9.2006 (Annexure P/5) fhc resixMident No.6, who was ass^ned fhe cbazy of SIiankul Prabhari, Jan Shiksha Kendra, Buia, was relieved fl»m ibat <^- cliai^e and in his place fhe petitiDner was ass^ned ttie char^ of Sliankul PTabhari. 3. By fhe order impugned, on. fhe basis ofGertam complamts a(pmst fhe petitioner, fhe petitioner has becn relieved &pm fhc ehaEgp of Shankul P'labhair, Bu-ra and ia his placc the Gluuge has been given to ffae respondent No.6. 4. Learaed eounscl &r fhe petitioner submits (hat (he impugiMd order has been. passed wifhout assignii^ any reason aiid no opportunity of hcaring was afforded to the petitioner. Thus, (he ordcr is bad in law. 5. Admittedty, fhe substantialappom.tinent offhe petitfoiier is on the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioaer was assigned tte responsibflity of Saukul Ptabhari (In-chargp). Thcre was no pKwisKm fbr paymcnt of any hoiiorarium or aUowaneea attaehed with fhe addttioiial assigmneat of Sankul Prabhari (In-chaise). Thus, removal offhe pctitjpncr firom fhe assipunent on fhe basis of certain complaints does not come wifhin IIDE puivjew ofdismissal or removal known in serrice ]aw.° It also docs not attach. aay st^ma orvisitwith any penaIcoDsequcncesasto efifectfhe future prospect ofthe petitioner for piomotion ete. 6. ItisweUsetffed principle oflaw fhatthis Courtwhiteexeroismgits jurisdiction under Arti.cte 226 of the Constitu.tfon of India Iias limited jurisdiction to fhe extentof reviewing ttie case, m fhe cvcnt, fhere is pcrversity, irregularity or iBegality ia fhc pnxseas of decision, not in fhe decisfon itsdf. 7. The Supreme Goiut in fhe caseofV. Raaana Vs. A.P. MCTC aad othCTS {(2005) 7 SCC 338 } aflerUamig considered tfae dicta bid down in B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India {(1995) 6 SCC 749}, 1 -s.^ v.-i- Unmnof IncUa Vs. 0. Ganayufham ^1997) 7 SCC 463} and other cases, obsened in para l l, as under:- "11. Thecommonfhread ruimingfluou^i in.an the«s decisions B that thc court shouU iiot interfere wifli fhe admmisttator's decision unless it was iDDgB»lor suffers fium procedural unproprfely orwas shockii^; to the conscieace of fhe coiirt, in fhe sense fhat it was in defiance oftogk; or inoral staadards. In view of what has beeu stated in Wednesbiuy casc4 the court wouM not go into the corFecfaiess offhe chotce madte by fhe adiiuiusteator open to hi«n aitd fhe court sbould not substitute its decisu>n for fhat of ffae admaustiator. Thc scope ofjudfcial review is Umited to fhe deficiency in dccfaion-Tnaking procsss airi not the deoision." 'K •f 8. In RamSaran Vs. IG ofPoItee, CI F aad oUicra {(2006) 2 SCC 541}flieSupieme Courtobservcd as under:- "8. TOB courts stioukl not interfere wifh the ^ministrator's decision untess it was iBogical or suffers fix>m procediual impropriety or was shocking to (he conscience of the court; in the sense ttiat it was ia defiance of togk: or moial staadards. In view of what has been stetrf. ia AsaoGtoted Provincial Pieture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbmy Corpa. (1948) l KB 223 : (1947) 2 AB ER 680 (CA) coimnonty known as Wednesbuiy casc thc coiurt would not go into the correctness of fhe choice naade by thc admimstiator open to him and the coiut shouM not stibstttute ifcs dectewn to fhat of the administeator. The scope of judicial rcview is limited to fh.e defkaency in the decision-makiDgpiuccssandnotthedeeisknn. (See V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC)." 9. The iiapugned orderdated 27.1.2007 is simpUciter wiQidiawal of additioiial iBsponsffl>3i)y or assignment aad not punitive in nataBe. 1 %i Subhash It is apparent fhat on fhe basis ofcertain complaints ^aiast (he petitioiier, hc has becn rclieved fix>m fhe chargp whk-h does not amount to st^ma or punishment on fhe scmee caraer of fhe petitioner. It seems that fhe respondent No.3 havir^ fonned fhe opinion fhat it is in fhe publfc interest for mamtaimng an efficfent administra.tion at fhe Shaakul Kendia, wifhdrew fhe additfonal chaige firom fhe petitiofier. The principtes of iiatural justice tia»e no place in the context of the wifhdiawal of additional assignn»nt and it is not subject to (hejudicial scrutiny. 10. In view of fhe foregoing, the petition deserves to be and is dismissed. No ordcr as to oosts. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge »E ,1,-y^