C,^ rzr^ F Ks-wr HON'BLES. B. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fSl No. J6/^ / 2010 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: ^ 4>,..-<€•' .o^4^y\y ^°^y ^^%> ^ ,«'~ A--' 'Pradeep Kumar Dewangan, S/o Lt. Shri S. N. Dewangan, Ag<^ - •:^~}~ Post- Sub Engineer, Posted at ^5T~' Janpad Panchayat Farasgaon, R/o Near Gandhi Chowk, Farasgaon, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS 1.' State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Rural Engineering Service, D.K.S. Building, Ministry, Raipur, C.G. 2. The Development Commissioner, Department of Rural Engineering Service, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 3. Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, District Bastar, Jagdalpur, C.G. 4. Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Division Kondagaon, District Bastar, C.G. 5. Mr. R.S. Rathore, Sub Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Sub Division Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, C.G. 6. Mr. H.D. Kurre, Sub Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Sub Division Kondagaon, District Bastar, C.G.. /'" 7. Mr. K.K. Sahu, Sub Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Sub Division Makadi, C.G.. 8. Mr D.S. Yadav, Sub Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Janpad Panchayat Keshkal, District Bastar, C.G.. WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA -^iDriei^-__ :?aff tsSS!S:SS @g3^-] ', HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1614 OF 2010 (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Alok Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 12th day ofApril, 2010) 1. Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the petitioner is senior to the respondents No.5, 6, 7 & 8, who have been posted as Assistant-Engineer, by order dated 10-2-2010 (Annexure - P/1) over the petitioner wherein he has been posted as Sub Engineer. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the posting of junior above the senior has been prohibited by memo dated 13-8-2002 (Annexure - P/3) whereunder the Secretary to the Government has made it clear to all the Collectors, State of Chhattisgarh that no Sub Engineer may be handed over the charge of Assistant Engineer where senior Sub Engineer is already working. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, referring the return filed by the State submits that the impugned "ord^r has been passed in administrative exigency, thus the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. PETITIONER Pradeep Kumar Dewangan Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others UUWl.l"MI"UI,.l,lll...,» ^auiso^ S-iO '/ 5. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner has been shown at S.No.13 and the name of the respondents No.5 to 8 has been shown at S.No.26, 85, 22 & 47 in the gradation list as on 1-4- 2009. Thus, the impugned order dated 10-2-2010 passed in respect of the respondents No.5 to 8 by posting them as Assistant Engineer is bad and vitiated. 6. On perusal of the memo dated 13-8-2002 (Annexure - P/9), it appears that the said memo was issued by the State Government, as a matter of policy decision keeping in view the efficiency in administration, as if juniors are posted above the seniors, the efficiency of the seniors and discipline in the office would completely be disturbed unless there is sufficient and cogent reasons not to assign additional charge of superior post to the senior Sub Engineer. 7. In the return, the State has not adverted or controverted to the averments made by the petitioner in his pleadings. The memo dated 13-8-2002 (Annexure - P/9) was already part of pleadings, which has not been adverted by the respondent State, may be deliberately, as the respondent State has nothing to submit against the memo dated 13-8-2002, issued by the State Government. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no other option but to quash the impugned order passed in respect of the respondent No.5 to 8 as Assistant Engineer. 9. - It [s well settled principles of law as held in umpteen number of cases that the efficiency and discipline in the administration should be the first and foremost requirement for posting an employee, as posting of a senior employee in the cadre is also in the public interest. •^ /ii ' ".'?!-, /SW9 ^^yjj .,fl;.l^.y '\ 10. Ignoring the claim of the petitioner to officiate or look after the work of superior office, in case of non-availability of officer on the superior post often results in grave injustice and heart-burning. This may shatter the moral of many good officers who are superseded due to this arbitrariness, such actions which are unreasonable and discriminatory. 11. In the case on hand, the memo was issued keeping in view the above-stated principle in mind. The authorities have completely ignored the memo as well as the public interest while posting the respondent No.5 to 8, who were junior to the petitioner, as it is not the case of the respondents that there is any allegation or any other reason, which prevented the State/respondents from making the petitioner as In-charge Assistant Engineer, in the area where he is already posted. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 10-2-2010 (Annexure - P/1) passed in respect of the respondent No.5 to 8 herein is quashed. However, on the request of learned counsel appearing for the State, the order is subject to verification of facts asto whether a junior Sub Engineer has been given posting of In-charge Assistant Engineer in the same place where the petitioner is working. 13. As an upshot, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Amit Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge a a