Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kumhar Singh Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 October, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.21909 of 2021
(Kumhar Singh Maravi Vs. The State of M.P. & others)
Jabalpur, dated: 20.10.2021
Shri K.K.Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Tapan Bathre, learned panel lawyer for the respondents/State.
Challenge being made to the transfer order dated 31.08.2021
passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner has been transferred
from Middle School Tatar to Primary School Mehandwani which is more
than 100 Kms away from the present place of posting.
It is submitted that the petitioner is having permanent disability of
40% and he is not in a position to drive a vehicle. There are 83 students in
Middle School Tatar where the petitioner was officiating and he was a single
teacher in that school. Nobody else has been transferred and posted in the
place of the petitioner. Transferring the petitioner will adversely affect the
academic session of the students. Transfer of the petitioner is also in
violation of Clause 26 and 32 of the transfer policy. He has submitted a
detailed representation to the respondents/authorities, the same is kept
pending and has not been decided till date. As the petitioner is the only
teacher in the school, therefore, he has not been relieved till date and he is
still continuing at the present place of posting i.e. Middle School Tatar.
An innocuous prayer is made to direct the respondents/authorities
to consider and decide the pending representation and till the decision on the
representation the petitioner may be permitted to continue at the present
place of posting i.e. Middle School Tatar, District Dindori.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer
and has argued that petitioner is a Government servant and he has been
transferred on 31.08.2021 on administrative grounds. The transfer order is
almost more than 1½ months old and petitioner must have been relieved by
now. He has not joined at the transferred place of posting. The medical
certificate showing permanent disability is 21 year old and it was issued on
30.03.2001 by the Assistant Surgeon and not even by the Medical Board. No
current certificate has been filed by the petitioner to point out that the
petitioner is still having disability of 40%. No document has been filed by
the petitioner to show that he is the only teacher in the school having
strength of 83 students. In such circumstances, no relief can be extended to
the petitioner. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Choudhary Vs. State of
M.P. and others reported in ILR (2007) MP 1329 and Mridul Kumar
Sharma Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556 and has
submitted that if a representation is submitted by the petitioner the same will
be considered and decided by the Authorities.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the perusal of the record, it is seen that the transfer order is
dated 31.08.2021, the petitioner has kept quite for almost more than 1½
months and the petition is filed on 04.10.2021. The disability certificate
which the petitioner has annexed is 21 year old certificate, coupled with the
fact that the same was not issued by the Medical Board and the current status
of disability could not be pointed out by the petitioner. No document is filed
by the petitioner to substantiate the argument that the petitioner is the only
teacher in the school having strength of 83 students. The Division Bench of
this Court in the case of R.S.Choudhary (supra) has held as under :-
"Transfer Policy formulated by State is not
enforceable as employee does not have a right and courts
have limited jurisdiction to interfere in the order of transfer.
Court can interfere in case of mandatory statutory rule or
action is capricious, malicious, cavalier and fanciful. In case
of violation of policy, proper remedy is to approach
authorities by pointing out violation and authorities to deal
with the same keeping in mind the policy guidelines."
The Division Bench of this Court in the case Mridul Kumar
(supra) has held as under :-
"Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a
particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to
other is an incident of service. No Government servant or
employee of public undertaking has legal right for being
posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to
other is generally a condition of service and the employee
has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other
is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the Public
Administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he
must comply with the order but if there be any genuine
difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make
representation to the competent authority for stay,
modification, or cancellation of the transfer order. If the
order of transfer is not stayed, modified, or cancelled the
concerned public servant must carry out the order of
transfer. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance to
the transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary
action under the relevant Rules, as has happened in the
instant case. The respondent lost his service as he refused to
comply with the order of his transfer from one place to the
other."
The personal inconveniences which the petitioner has pointed out
cannot be a ground for interference in the transfer order and for grant of
interim relief.
Considering the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in the aforesaid cases and also the fact that the transfer order was
passed on 31.08.2021, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ
petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the
respondent No.2 and in case such a representation is filed within seven days
from today, the respondent No.2 is directed to dwell upon the same and pass
a self contained speaking order and communicate the outcome to the
petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
(Vishal Mishra)
Judge
AM.
Digitally signed by ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2021.10.23 18:17:35 +05'30'
