Dr.Manoj Kaurav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3093 MP

                           1
              HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            WP-8978-2021
       (DR.MANOJ KAURAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)



Gwalior, Dated : 08.07.2021

      Heard through video conferencing.

      Shri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Ajay Singh Raghuwanshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the

respondent/State.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging

the order dated 04.01.2021 Annexure P/1 passed by the respondent

no.3, whereby respondent No. 5 has been order to be transferred and

posted as Incharge District Health Officer-2, O/o Chief Medical &

Health Officer, District Gwalior. The respondent No. 5 has been

transferred vide Annexure P/1 over the post which has already been

occupied by the present petitioner.

Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2021

passed by the respondent No. 4, whereby, additional charge of District

Health Officer-1 has been given to the respondent No. 6 in addition to

the charge of Programme Manager (NHM), Gwalior. Therefore, the

order impugned Annexure P/2 issued by the respondent No. 4 is per se

illegal as the charge has been given to the junior to the petitioner.

It is submitted that the petitioner is senior most and qualified

P.S.C in the year 2000, whereas, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had

qualified the PSC in the year 2007 and 2011 respectively. Therefore,

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-8978-2021 (DR.MANOJ KAURAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

he prays for quashment of the both the impugned orders.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner

has already submitted a detailed representation before the competent

authority, but the representation is still pending and no decision has

been taken by the competent authority.

Per contra counsel for the State has opposed the petition and

argued that transfer is a routine course of service and the employee

working in a government department has to comply with the transfer

orders. As far as the violation of guidelines issued by the Government

is concerned, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of R.S. Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P.,

ILR (2007) M.P.1329 and has argued that the petitioner is having a

remedy to file a representation to the authorities and the same will be

considered and dealt with in accordance with law. He has further

relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court

in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs.State of M.P. ILR (2015)

MP 2556, wherein it is held that transferred employee is required to

submit his joining at the transferred place and thereafter his

representation was directed to be considered. In the present case, by

the impugned order the petitioner has already been transferred and

relieved from his present place of posting. In such circumstances, no

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-8978-2021 (DR.MANOJ KAURAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

interference is called for. The transfer of the petitioner is purely on

administrative grounds. The interference in transfer order can be made

only on three counts i.e. in-violation of any statutory rules or

provisions, in case of any malafides being alleged. The petitioner

could not point out any of the grounds for challenging the transfer

order. In such circumstances no interference can be made in the

transfer order. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition filed by

the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

As far as the law with respect to the transfer is well settled as

has been held in the case of R.S. Chaudhary (supra), wherein it is

held:

"35. ... In view of the aforesaid pronunciation of law by the Apex Court in several cases, which we have referred hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the transfer policy formulated by the State is not enforceable as the employee does have a right and the Courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere in the order of transfer. The Court can interfere if there is violation of mandatory statutory rule or if the action of the Government is capricious, malicious, cavalier and fanciful. What would constitute these components that would depend on facts of each case as the same can be neither illustratively or exhaustively stated. In fact, that is not warrantable to be stated. We proceed to hold that in case an order of transfer is assailed on the ground that there has been violation of the

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-8978-2021 (DR.MANOJ KAURAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

policy, the proper remedy is to approach the authorities by pointing out the violation and it is expected of the authorities to deal with the same keeping in mind the policy guidelines with utmost objectivity."

In the case of Mridual Kumar (supra), it has been held as

under:

"5. Be that as it may, in the present case, it is not as if the two writ petitions were kept pending and inconsistent "interim relief" granted therein. In fact, both the writ petitions have been finally disposed of. However, in one case limited protection has been given to the writ petitioner therein by another Bench. In our opinion, in the light of the principle expounded by the Supreme Court, referred to above, the Court must eschew from issuing such direction - as it inevitably results in dictating the concerned Authority in respect of administrative matter within his domain. Accordingly, the decision pressed into service, cannot be treated as a binding precedent on the matter in issue and will be of no avail to the appellant."

The transfer order is of January, 2021 and the petitioner must

have already relieved by the respondents, therefore, no interim relief

can be granted. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the

case and in view of the law laid down in the case of R.S. Chaudhary

(supra) and Mridul Kumar Sharma (supra), this petition is

disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to re-submit the detailed

representation to Authorities within a period of seven working days

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-8978-2021 (DR.MANOJ KAURAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

from today and in turn the respondent is directed to consider and

dwell upon the representation submitted by the petitioner and take a

final decision within a period of one month from the date of receipt of

certified copy of this order.

Needless to say that this Court has not commented upon the

merits of the case.

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

E-copy/certified copy as per rules/directions.

                                                           (Vishal Mishra)
LJ*/-                                                          Judge
    Digitally signed
    by LOKENDRA
    JAIN
    Date: 2021.07.13
    12:45:50 +05'30'