Dayashankar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5172 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 5172 MP
Judgement Date : 8 September, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dayashankar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2021

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                               1
        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 Writ Petition No.17580/2021
      Dayashankar Sharma Vs. The State of M.P. and others

Gwalior, Dated :08/9/2021

      Shri S.S. Raghuvanshi, Advocate for petitioner.

      Shri Jitesh Sharma, Government Advocate for the State.

      This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed against the order dated 26/7/2021 passed by respondent

no.2, by which the petitioner has been transferred from Government

Primary School, Odeela, Block Essagarh, Ashoknagar to Government

Primary School Gandhinagar Shadora, Block Shadora on

administrative ground.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner is holding the post of Teacher and he is the nominated

Block President of Essagarh of Madhya Pradesh Shikshak Congress

and, therefore, he is entitled for exemption from transfer for a period

of four years. It is further submitted that only in the year 2019 the

petitioner was transferred to the present place of posting and he has

not completed three years of his tenure. It is further submitted by the

counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would file a

representation against his transfer order and, therefore, the

respondents may be directed to decide the same.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

During the course of arguments, it was fairly conceded by the

counsel for the petitioner that by order dated 23/1/2021 the petitioner

has been nominated as the President of Shadora Block. Clause 33 of

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.17580/2021 Dayashankar Sharma Vs. The State of M.P. and others

the Transfer Policy reads as under:-

**33-jkT; 'kklu ls i=kpkj djus dh ekU;rk izkIr deZpkjh laxBuksa ds izns'[email protected]@[email protected]@fodkl [k.M 'kk[kk ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa ;Fkk&v/;{[email protected]@dks"kk/;{k dks in ij fu;qfDr mijkar LFkkukarj.k ls nks inkof/k ds fy;s vFkkZr 4 o"kZ rd dh lkekU;r% NwV izkIr gksxhA ;g lqfo/kk mlds iwjs lsokdky esa fu;ekuqlkj nks inkof/k ds fy;s feysxhA 4 o"kZ ls vf/kd inLFkkiuk vof/k iw.kZ gksus ij iz'kkldh; vko';drk vuqlkj ,sls inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks Hkh LFkkukarfjr fd;k tk ldsxkA laxBu ds inksa esa fu;qfDr dh iwoZ lwpuk ds laca/k esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh dh larqf"V dk vk/kkj eq[; gksxkA bl laca/k esa 'kklu ds i= Øekad ,Q 10&[email protected]@1&15d-d-

fnukad 24 vizSy] 2006 ds izko/kkuksa dk voyksdu djsa] ftls Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd ekU;rk izkIr deZpkjh laxBuksa }kjk fuokZpu ds i'pkr~ fuokZfpr inkf/kdkfj;ksa dh lwph muds dk;Zdky lfgr lacaf/kr dysDVj dks nh tk;sxh blds lkFk&lkFk lacaf/kr foHkkx izeq[k] tgka os dk;Zjr gksa] rFkk lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ¼deZpkjh dY;k.k izdks"B½ dks fnukad 30 vizSy dh fLFkfr esa lkSai nh xbZ gks] mUgha inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks LFkkukarj.k ls NwV dk ykHk fn;k tkuk pkfg,A**

From the plain reading of Clause 33 of the transfer policy, it is

clear that only the elected office bearers are exempted from transfer

and not nominated officer bearers.

At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner

that he would make a representation and the respondents may be

directed to decide the same.

Accordingly, in the light of the judgment passed by the

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma

v. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2015 (4) MPLJ 480, it is

directed that if the petitioner joins at the transferred place and makes

a representation for modification of the transfer order, then the same

shall be considered in accordance with law. It is observed that the