Shanti Sawroop Chodhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7347 MP

     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
                   (Division Bench)


                       W.A. No.1071 of 2021

                     Shanti Swaroop Chodhary
                              -Versus-
                     The State of M.P. and Ors.

                               --
Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ashish Anand Barnad, Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
_______________________________________________________
CORAM :
       Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice.
       Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.

                          JUDGMENT

(Jabalpur, dtd.12.11.2021)

Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-

The present intra-court appeal has been filed under

Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand

Nyaypeeth to Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the

order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.22753 of 2021

(Shanti Swaroop Chodhary vs. The State of M.P. and others], dated

22-10-2021, whereby the writ petition preferred by the writ-

petitioner/appellant has been dismissed.

2. The writ-petitioner/appellant [hereinafter referred to as

"the appellant] has challenged the validity of the transfer dated 31-8-

2021 whereby he has been transferred from Tikamgarh to Sagar. He

was working as Lecturer (History) in the Govt. Girls' Higher

Secondary, Tikamgarh from where he has been transferred to Govt.

Higher Secondary School, Nimon District Sagar.

3. An argument was advanced before the learned Single

Judge that the appellant is working on the post of Lecturer which is

District Cadre and, therefore, he should not have been transferred

out of the District. However, the learned counsel for the State after

receiving instructions, stated before the learned Single Judge that the

post of Lecturer is a State Cadre and not District Cadre and,

therefore, the first submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant was rejected. The transfer order was also assailed on the

ground that there is violation of Section 25 of the Right to Free and

Compulsory Children Education Act, 2009 [for short, "the Act"]

inasmuch as out of sanctioned four posts of Lecturer (History) only

two teachers are working and after transfer of the appellant there

will be only one teacher of History. The third ground which was

taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent

No.3 has acted malafidely and has been instrumental in his transfer.

To substantiate his ground it is submitted that since the Principal,

Govt. Girls' Higher Secondary School, Tikamgarh, respondent No.3,

relieved the appellant on 8-9-2021 in pursuance of the transfer order

dated 31-8-2021, though copy of same has not been endorsed to the

respondent No.3, therefore, necessary conclusion shall be that the

respondent No.3 has been instrumental in getting the appellant

transferred. The fourth ground is that the appellant is suffering from

Spondylolysis and low back pain, therefore, he should not have been

transferred out of the District.

4. The learned Single Judge has rightly held, that so as the

ground of breach of provisions of Section 25 of the Act is

concerned, it is for the authorities to look into the same and maintain

the ratio of teacher and students as per availability of teachers and

that cannot be a ground to assail the transfer order. Similarly, plea

of malafide was also rejected merely because the appellant has been

relieved by the Principal of the School by order dated 8-9-2021, that

does not reflect that the Principal was instrumental in getting the

appellant transferred out of the District Tikamgarh.

5. The appellant has already stayed for a period of 7 years

at the present place of posting and, therefore, he has been transferred

on administrative exigencies and the learned Single Judge has

rightly held that no interference is called for, because the transfer

order has been issued on administrative ground. As the appellant

has already remained at the present place of posting for a period of

7 years, personal difficulty and hardships cannot be a ground for

interference with the transfer order.

6. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality or

perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge

warranting any interference in the present intra-court appeal. It is

accordingly dismissed. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any,

also stands disposed of.

        (Ravi Malimath)                                  (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
          Chief Justice                                          Judge


ac.

 Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI
 Date: 2021.11.17 17:30:00 +05'30'