Indrajeet Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7506 MP

     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
                   (Division Bench)


                       W.A. No.1092 of 2021

                          Indrajeet Tiwari
                              -Versus-
                     The State of M.P. and Ors.

                                --
Mr. K.C, Ghildilayal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Pushpendra Yadav, Additional 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.17.11.2021)

Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-

Present intra-court appeal has been preferred under

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

Nyaypeeth to Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the

order dated 27-10-2021 passed in Writ Petition No.22740 of 2021

[Indrajeet Tiwari vs. State of M.P. and others] by the learned Single

Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been

dismissed.

2. The factual expose' adumbrated in a nutshell, are that

the writ-petitioner/appellant [hereinafter referred to as "the

appellant"] is holding the post of Sub-Engineer in the Rural

Engineering Services Department. He has challenged the transfer

order dated 31-8-2021 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby he

has been transferred from Rural Engineering Services Division

Shahdol to Rural Engineering Services Division Barwani on

administrative ground. The assail to the transfer order is mainly on

the ground that the appellant is officiating as an office-bearer of

Madhya Pradesh Karmchari Congress and holds the Office of

District Secretary of the Association and in terms of Clause 33 of the

Transfer Policy, office-bearers of the Association are exempted from

transfer for two tenures or four years. Secondly, the appellant has

been transferred from the present place of posting within a period of

1 year five months.

3. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer

and submitted that the issue with respect to transfer of office-bearers

of an Association has been considered by this Court in the case of

Balram Dhakar vs. State of M.P. and others [W.P. No.17800 of

2021, decided on 9-9-2021], wherein the question with respect to

election or nomination of an office-bearer was considered by the

Court and the petition was dismissed owing to the fact that the said

Clause of the Transfer Policy is applicable in the case of elected

member and not of a nominated member.

4. Admittedly, the appellant is a nominated office-bear

and, therefore, the Clause 33 of the Transfer Policy would not be of

any assistance to the appellant. The ground that the appellant has

been transferred within a period of 1 year and five months, cannot

be termed as frequent transfer. So far as the other ground of

personal inconvenience is concerned, the only remedy available to

the appellant is to get his representation decided expeditiously.

5. The learned Single Judge referring to the Division

Bench judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of R.S.

Chaudhary and others vs. State of M.P. and others, ILR (2007)

MP 1329 and Mridul Kumar Sharma vs. State of M.P. & ors,

ILR (2015) MP 2556, has dismissed the writ petition preferred by

the appellant which is impugned in the present intra-court appeal.

We do not perceive any illegality in the reasonings ascribed by the

learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition and the same are

impeccable.

6. Consequently, no interference is called for in the instant

appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs.

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: 2021.11.24 13:42:22 +05'30'