Asharani Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Sudeep Johri, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3.

This appeal is presented against an order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 6217 of 2022, whereby the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with an order dated 09.09.2022, whereby the petitioner was reverted to her original place of posting, i.e., Aadiwasi Kanya Ashram, Kamthi, Block-Pandariya.

The petitioner, while serving as Assistant Teacher (Local Bodies) in Kanya Shiksha Parisar, Bhoramdev, was promoted by an order dated 23.02.2022 as Head Mistress of Aadiwasi Kanya Ashram, Kamthi. It is the case of the petitioner that Kanya Shiksha Parisar, Bhoramdev, where petitioner was functioning, is under the control of School Education Department.

The order dated 23.02.2022 also recites that as the recruitment process for recruiting 'Superintendent' to various tribal hostels were under process, it was considered necessary to post some such promoted persons as Superintendent In-charge in such hostels purely as a temporary measure. Accordingly, the petitioner was also asked to discharge her duties as Superintendent of Kanya Shiksha Parisar, Bhoramdev.

Though the Kanya Shiksha Parisar, Bhoramdev is under the School Education Department, it is submitted by Mr. Johri that hostel of Kanya Shiksha Parisar, Bhoramdev is controlled by the Tribal Welfare Department.

As noticed earlier, by the order dated 09.09.2022, the petitioner was directed to revert back to her promotional post of posting at Aadiwasi Kanya Ashram, Kamthi.

Submission of Mr. Johri is that since the petitioner was asked to discharge duties temporarily as Superintendent of Kanya Shiksha Parisar, Bhoramdev, in terms of second proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961 (for short, 'Rules of 1961'), she should be allowed to continue in such post for a minimum period of 2 years.

The petitioner had accepted her order of transfer dated 23.02.2022, wherein it was categorically stated that purely as a temporary measure in order to tide over present difficulties, the petitioner was posted as Superintendent of Kanya Shiksha Parisar, Bhoramdev. The petitioner having accepted the aforesaid promotion order, now cannot plead that the petitioner is entitled to continue in such post for a period of 2 years atleast.

Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that the second proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1961 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Second proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1961 reads as follows :

“Provided further that if the Government servant is appointed to a post to which direct recruitment is also made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules governing appointments to such post then the period of officiation shall be equal to the period of probation prescribed for a person appointed by direct recruitment to the said post under the rules.”

It is not a case of the petitioner being appointed to the post of Superintendent of Kanya Shiksha Parisar, Bhoramdev. Appointment to a post is the cornerstone of second proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1961.

The substantive post of the petitioner is the Head Mistress of Aadiwasi Kanya Ashram, Kamthi and the petitioner was only asked to discharge functions for a limited period as Superintendent of Kanya Shiksha Parisar, Bhoramdev.

In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed.