MANOJ KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. NARENDRA DHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Manoj Shrivastava is aggrieved by letter sent to him by the respondent No.1 Narendra Dhakar, Additional Director, Department of Higher Education Government of Madhya Pradesh.

(2.) IN fact the petition is vague in its contents and in the prayer clause the petitioner has prayed for quashment of his warning letter and also prayed for issuance of appropriate writ to compensate the petitioner in terms of pecuniary losses as well as other losses and to pay arrears of balance of emoluments of three increments from 2/12/2010 till date. On submissions the petitioner stated that he was working on the post of visiting Lecturer in History when he was issued the aforesaid letter and due to the said letter the petitioner insisted that he was stopped from future employment. He had also filed earlier petition before this Court Writ Petition No. 8380/2012 whereby he had challenged all the issues as to why he is being stopped from the appointment as a the Lecturer and this Court had directed that the petitioner's right to appointment as a guest Lecturer would be considered in the next academic session which has not been done. The State Government had filed W.A. 540/2013 whereby the Division Bench had upheld the order of the Single Bench and hence the petitioner contended that the respondent has not still been given him any further appointment. And hence the petitioner prayed that the warning letter be quashed and the arrears of pay and monetary loss be made good.

(3.) ON considering the above submissions, specifically the contention that the petitioner had sustained monetary losses, the petitioner has also made allegations against the respondents. He has however been unable to substantiate any of the same. He stated that he had not take any action to have declared the complaints declared to be forged or fraudulent. He was asked by this Court whether he wanted to file any rejoinder. He stated that he did not wish to do so and just asked the Court to decide the petition. I do not find any good ground to set aside the letter which is only a reprimand in terms of administration by the respondent, who is an Additional Director of the Higher Education Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh. He has issued the notice in the interest of the petitioner himself since he was concerned due to complaints received by him from the students and it is the duty of every officer of the management to issue instructions and reprimand the employee regarding the nature of work that is carried out and to improve himself. As to how the monitory loss has been sustained by the petitioner since he was not a regular employee of the institution petitioner stated that they have not employed him in future. In this regard also no fault can be found in the decision taken by the respondents. An employee cannot foist his services on an unwilling employer is the basic principle of any service jurisprudence and under the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition and therefore, it is dismissed as such.