Smt. Kalpna Gandhare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6789 MP

                                            1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH,
                   AT JABALPUR

                             (DIVISION BENCH)
                              W.A. No. 960/2021

      Smt.Kalpna Gandhare                                       ...Appellant
                                      Versus

      State of Madhya Pradesh and others                         ...Respondents
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Coram :
              Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice.
              Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Presence :
              Shri Aditya Ahiwasi, learned counsel for the appellant.
              Shri A.P.Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the
              respondents/State.
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               JUDGMENT

(25/10/2021)

Per : V.K. Shukla, J.

The present intra court appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of

Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal)

Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the order dated 13-09-2021 passed

in W.P.No.18063/2021 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant

has been dismissed and the appellant has been granted liberty to prefer a

representation before the respondents authorities for redressal of her

grievances and if such representation is preferred within 10 days, the

authorities were directed to deal with the representation and pass a

speaking order expeditiously.

2. The appellant has challenged the order of transfer dated 31-08-

2021 passed by the respondent no.3 whereby he has been directed to be

transferred from Burhanpur to District Agar Malva. It is alleged that the

appellant was earlier transferred from Alirajpur to District Burhanpur in

the year 2019 but without completing the service tenure of 3 years, the

appellant vide order dated 31-08-2021 has again been transferred from

Burhanpur to District Agar Malva.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the circular

dated 24-02-2020 and submitted that there is no provision of transfer of

a contractual employee because her service is not permanent in nature but

her place can be changed on extreme conditions and on administrative

exigency but the order does not reflect any such conditions or

administrative exigency. He has relied on the certain orders passed by

the High Court whereby the orders were stayed. However, the learned

Single Judge has found that the appellant has failed to prove that the

services of the appellant are non-transferable. On the contrary, he has

referred the conditions of Model Human Resource Manual. Clause

No.3.5 of the same deals with the Staff Appointment and Contract, which

is reproduced as under :

"3.5- Staff Appointment and Contract,- A contract i.e., 'a legal binding arrangement between SRLM and the concerned staff for performing their roles and duties while

engaged as staff under SRLM 'would be signed once the selected candidates confirm their joining after probation period.

The recruitment and selection of staff in SRLM in general would be on a fixed tenure basis. All such appointments would follow the Recruitment and Selection Policy of SRLM.

In general, all staff engaged on fixed tenure basis would have three year tenure, unless otherwise decided by the SMD/CEO, EC or the Governing Board, as the case may be. Other terms of contract include:

Contract would be renewed annually subject to satisfactory annual Performance Appraisal All fixed tenure staff would be transferable as per the needs of SRLM.

The contract of Fixed Tenure Staff may be terminated upon unsatisfactory performance (as per Performance Appraisal) or, terminated due to disciplinary action or may end after completion of the contract period or may end voluntarily (resignation) by the staff.

For other staff, the terms and conditions of work and conduct would be defined in the contract."

4. In pursuance to the appointment order issued to the appellant, the

appellant was required to execute a contract with the

respondents/department. From perusal of the aforesaid conditions of

appointment and contract, it is clear that the service of the appellant is

transferable as per the needs of State Rural Livelihoods Mission

(SRLM). The basic object of the Mission is to facilitate the district and

block units in building and supporting the community institutions and

community professionals.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents appeared and submitted that

the appellant has been transferred on a series of complaints and

warnings issued to her. However, the respondents taking into

consideration the fact that the appellant being a lady and her services,

considered it proper not to take action for termination of the services of

the appellant but to transfer her from the present place of posting.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents produced the material of

complaints and warnings before this court. Taking into the consideration

the specific stand of the respondents that the appellant has been

transferred on administrative exigency, we are of the view that the

learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ

petition holding that the service of the appellant is transferable and she

has been transferred on administrative ground.

7. In view of the aforesaid, no interference is called for. Accordingly

the writ appeal is dismissed.

      (RAVI MALIMATH)                        (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
        CHIEF JUSTICE                                JUDGE
hsp
           Digitally signed by
           HARSAHAI PATERIYA
           Date: 2021.10.28
           13:27:07 +05'30'