Withdrawal of temporary additional charge creates no vested right and requires no prior hearing.

The petitioner was substantively working as Manager of Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Kotba, and was additionally entrusted with the temporary charge of Manager of Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Jamjhor, Registration No. 263.

By order dated 14 July 2026, the competent authority withdrew the additional charge from the petitioner and entrusted it to respondent No. 3, citing administrative reasons.

The petitioner challenged the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the withdrawal was arbitrary and was made without granting an opportunity of hearing.

The State opposed the petition, arguing that the additional charge was temporary, that its withdrawal did not affect the petitioner’s substantive post or service, and that no legal right had been infringed.

1. Whether withdrawal of the petitioner’s temporary additional charge and its entrustment to respondent No. 3, for administrative reasons, was illegal or arbitrary.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the additional charge was withdrawn.

3. Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with an administrative arrangement that did not affect the petitioner’s substantive appointment.

The Court applied the principle that an additional or temporary charge does not create a vested right to continuation, particularly where the employee continues to hold the substantive post.

Withdrawal of such an additional charge for administrative exigencies is an administrative arrangement and does not ordinarily attract a requirement of prior hearing when it neither imposes a penalty nor adversely affects the employee’s substantive service.

The Court further applied the restraint governing judicial review under Article 226, holding that administrative arrangements should not ordinarily be interfered with absent demonstrable illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was relied upon in the order.

The Court found that the petitioner’s charge at Jamjhor was only an additional and temporary arrangement, while her substantive appointment remained unaffected.

Since the competent authority withdrew only the additional charge and reassigned it to respondent No. 3 for administrative exigencies, the petitioner had no enforceable right to continue in that additional role.

The withdrawal did not amount to a penalty or alteration of the petitioner’s substantive service conditions; consequently, the absence of a prior hearing did not invalidate the order.

In the absence of any demonstrated illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity, the Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

It held that the petitioner could not claim continuation of the temporary additional charge as a matter of right and that no prior hearing was necessary before its withdrawal, as the petitioner’s substantive service remained unaffected.

Finding no illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity in the order dated 14 July 2026, the Court dismissed the writ petition at the motion stage.