Madhya Pradesh High Court
Fateh Singh Sehra vs The State Of M.P. on 25 October, 2021
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 WP-20085-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-20085-2021
(FATEH SINGH SEHRA Vs THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 25-10-2021
Shri D.K. Dixit, learned counsel with Shri Amit Kumar Chaturvedi,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Deshmukh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State.
Shri Manoj Kushwaha, learned counsel for respondent no.5.
They are heard.
Counsel for the respondent no.5 has submitted that reply on behalf of
respondent no.5 has been filed.
Counsel for the petitioner by the instant petition is challenging the order
31.08.2021 (Annexure P/1) by which the petitioner has been directed to be
transferred from District Institute of Education and Training, Shahdol (DIET)
to District Institute of Education and Training, Umariya. Learned counsel
submits that the challenge is made mainly on the ground that the impugned
order has been issued with mala fide intention, that too at the behest of
respondent no.5 because he wanted to continue to hold the charge of the post
of Principal (DIET).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on earlier occasion
petitioner has been assigned charge of the post of Principal (DIET) and that
order has been assailed by respondent no.5 by filing W.P. No. 3379/2020 in
which this Court has granted interim order on 10.02.2020 and stayed the
operation of the impugned order and if petitioner is transferred, the
respondent no.5 would continue with the said charge. He submits that when
writ petition is already pending and order of giving charge of the post of
Principal (DIET) is already under challenge and stay has been granted by the
High Court, petitioner cannot be transferred. Learned counsel further submits
that filing of caveat on behalf of respondent no.5 clearly indicates that he is
interested in transferring the petitioner which shows his mala fide intention.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Shri Rahul Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the
Digitally signed by SATYA SAI RAO
Date: 2021.10.28 12:42:06 IST
2 WP-20085-2021
respondents/State has opposed the submission made by learned counsel for
the petitioner and submitted that there is no mala fide in transferring the
petitioner and only on the basis of bald statement of mala fide, the order of
transfer cannot be interfered with. He further submits that the impugned order
has been issued by the State Government and the respondent no.5 is nothing
but a Lecturer, having no such connection that on his behest, State
Government can pass the order of transfer. He submits that petitioner has
completed sufficient period at one place and if transfer is made, there is no
illegality in the same. He further submits that merely because earlier petitioner
was given the charge of the post of Principal (DIET) and the said order has
been assailed by respondent no.5 in which stay has been granted, it does not
mean that during the pendency of the said petition, petitioner cannot be
transferred.
The respondent no.5 has already filed its reply stating therein that
petitioner has already been relieved on 10.09.2021 and transferred place is at a
distance of about 66 kms. He further submits that in view of several
judgments of the Supreme Court as also of High Court, it is the consistent
view that in a matter of transfer, judicial review is not permissible unless
transfer order suffers from mala fide and is issued in violation of any
statutory provision. He submits that under such a circumstance, no
interference is called for.
Considering the aforesaid, I am not convinced with the submission
made by learned counsel for the petitioner that merely because one petition is
pending in which order of giving charge of the post of Principal (DIET) to the
petitioner is under challenge and that order has been stayed, the authority
cannot issue the order of transfer of the petitioner. So far as allegation of
mala fide is concerned, there is nothing available on record to indicate that
the order impugned has been issued by the State Government at the behest of
respondent nos. 5 and 6. The order is issued purely on administrative
Signature Not Verified
SAN
exigency. The petitioner has completed his sufficient period at one place and
Digitally signed by SATYA SAI RAO
Date: 2021.10.28 12:42:06 IST
3 WP-20085-2021
there is nothing on record indicating that the order impugned has been issued
in violation of any statutory provision. It is a trite law that in a matter of
transfer, scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is very limited. The Court can interfere in the order of transfer only
when it is issued with mala fide intention or violates any statutory provision
but here in this case, there is nothing like that. Therefore, there is no
substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
rao
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SATYA SAI RAO
Date: 2021.10.28 12:42:06 IST
