Sudesh Kumar Burman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6444 MP

                                   1                                  WA-916-2021
         The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                     WA-916-2021
    (SUDESH KUMAR BURMAN AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

1
Jabalpur, Dated : 05-10-2021
       Heard through Video Conferencing.
       Per:V.K.Shukla,J.

Shri K.K.Gautam, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Darshan Soni, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

The present intra court appeal has been filed by appellants Sudesh Kumar Burman and Sushri Saroj Banspal under Section 2(1) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalya (Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the order dated 20-09-2021, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

The appellants have challenged the transfer order dated 31-08-2021, whereby the appellant no.1, who is working as Multipurpose Worker (M.P.W.) has been transferred from Sub Health Centre Nunkhan, Community Health Centre Vikrampur to Sub Health Centre Jadasurang,

Community Health Centre Samnapur. The appellant no.2, who is working as Supervisor has been transferred from Sector Vikrampur, Community Health Centre Vikrampur to Sub Health Centre Baharpur, Community Health Centre Karanjia.

The challenge to the aforesaid transfer order was made mainly on the ground that the appellants are office bearers of the association and the transfer order has been issued at the instance of local politician.

On a query being made by this court, the learned counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants are continuing at the present place of posting for quite long time. The appellants have been transferred on administrative ground alongwith several other ANMs/Supervisors. The transfer order has been passed by the competent authority.

                                     2                               WA-916-2021
      So far the issue     of recommendation by the local politician        vide

Annexure P-2 is concerned, in the said recommendation only it has been mentioned that the appellants have completed their three years tenure and therefore, the transfer was recommended. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that the appellants have not completed their three years

tenure , therefore, merely because a letter has been written (Annexure P-2), the allegations of malafide do not get proved in the present case. The aforesaid letter is a recommendation in view of the transfer policy of the State Government as the appellants had completed 3 years period of stay at one place.

In regard to the contentions that the transfer order is issued in violation of Clause 33 of the transfer policy and that the appellants are office bearers and therefore, they ought not to have been transferred cannot be accepted as there are no rules granting immunity to the office bearers.

It is settled that the transfer policy is mere guidelines and it does not confer any legally and enforceable right. The learned Single Judge has relied on a judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of O.P. Sharma Vs. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board, Bhopal and others passed in WA No.958/2017 decided on 06-11-2017 wherein it has been held that an order of transfer of an employee is a part of the service conditions and such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by a court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the court finds that either the order is malafide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the order had not the competent to pass the order .

We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants be granted liberty to submit a representation before the competent authority. Considering the aforesaid prayer the liberty is granted to the appellants to submit a representation against the transfer order 3 WA-916-2021 before the competent authority and in case such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ appeal is disposed of.

                                              (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)                           (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
                                               CHIEF JUSTICE                                        JUDGE


                                        hsp




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by HARSAHAI PATERIYA
Date: 2021.10.07 12:59:00 IST