Rajesh Kumar Gaur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1363 MP

                                  (1)              W.A.No.1087/2020

           HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                 BENCH AT GWALIOR

                     Writ Appeal No.1087/2020

                          Rajesh Kumar Gaur
                                   Vs.
                       State of M.P. and others

                                 Coram:
             Hon. Shri Justice S.A.Dharmadhikari
               Hon. Shri Justice Anand Pathak
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.P.Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.P.Singh Kaurav, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents No.1 to 3/State.
Shri S.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       JUDGMENT

(Delivered on this 7th day of April 2021)

In this Writ Appeal preferred under Section 2 (1) of the

Madhya Pradesh Uchch Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko

Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, challenge has been made to the

order dt.13.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.11308/2020, whereby Writ Petition challenging the

transfer order dt.6.8.2020 has been allowed thereby quashing

the same.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the

respondent No.4/petitioner was transferred from Janpad

Panchayat Pohari, District Shivpuri to Janpad Panchayat

Gaurihar, District Chhatarpur vide order dt.06.08.2020. Being (2) W.A.No.1087/2020

aggrieved, he challenged the order dt.06.08.2020 by filing

W.P.No.11308/2020 on the ground of frequent transfers stating

that within a short span of 11 months he has been transferred

thrice. Return was filed by the official respondents No.1 to 3.

Writ petition came to be allowed on the ground that the

respondent No.4 has been subjected to frequent transfers within

a period of one year and no reason has been assigned by the

respondents No.1 to 3 warranting his transfer and relying the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.S.R.Subramanian

& Others Vs. Union of India reported in (2013) 15 SCC 732

the impugned order dt.06.08.2020 was set aside.

3. Being aggrieved, present appellant/respondent No.4 in

the writ petition has assailed the aforesaid order dt.13.10.2020

passed by the learned Writ Court in this appeal on the ground

that anthology of frequent transfers can not be made to the

gazetted officer but the same is made applicable only to Class

III and Class IV employees. It is also submitted that learned

Single Judge relied on the judgment in the case of

T.S.R.Subramanian (supra), which is not applicable to the

facts and circumstances of the present case. It is further

submitted that writ court has failed to consider the fact that the

policy of transfer is not subject to judicial review and the same

deserves to be interfered with.

(3) W.A.No.1087/2020

4. On the other hand, respondent No.4 in this appeal

submitted that the order transferring the respondent No.4 to

Chhatarpur had been cancelled on 18.02.2021 and therefore,

now there is no post available for the respondent No.4 to be

posted. No error has been committed by the learned Single

Judge in allowing the writ petition inasmuch as respondent

No.4 was transferred thrice within a period of 11 months. Even

though respondent No.4 may not be a Class III or Class IV

employee but the analogy remains the same for Class I and

Class II officers, as the learned single judge has rightly

observed that there should be a stability of tenure, so that an

employee is not forced to keep his bag and baggages in a

packed condition in order to shift his family on frequent basis

and further, he can discharge his duties effectively.

5. The present respondent No.4/petitioner had filed

W.P.No.11308/2020 challenging the transfer order

dt.06.08.2020. The writ petition was allowed vide order

dt.13.10.2020. It shall be appropriate to reproduce the relevant

portion of the order dt.13.8.2020 which is as under :-

"Thus, there should be a stability of tenure, so that an employee is not forced to keep his bag and baggages in a packed condition in order to shift his family on frequent basis and further, he can discharge his duties effectively.

As the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers within a period of one year and no reason has been assigned by the respondents (4) W.A.No.1087/2020

no.1 to 3 warranting his transfer, therefore, in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of T.S.R. Subramanian (Supra), this Court is of the considered opinion, that the impugned order dated 6-8-2020 could not withstand the judicial scrutiny.

Resultantly, the order dated 6-8-2020 by which the petitioner was transferred to Janpad Panchayat Gaurihar, Distt. Chhatarpur, is hereby quashed.

Petition succeeds and is hereby Allowed."

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is an admitted position that the respondent

No.4/petitioner has been transferred thrice within a short span

of 11 months and learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the

writ petition on the ground of frequent transfers, therefore, no

interference can be made by this Court. The appellant has not

been able to successfully point out that anybody is having any

grudge against him. Moreover, the employer is the best person

to judge the suitability of the person to be posted at a particular

place. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in

the appeal. Accordingly the appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed.

No order as to costs.

                         (S.A.Dharmadhikari)              (Anand Pathak)
                               Judge                          Judge
             SP

SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
2021.04.07
17:48:32 +05'30'