Rohini Tekam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5452 MP

                                                         1                               WP-18615-2021
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                         WP-18615-2021
                                   (ROHINI TEKAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


                      Jabalpur, Dated : 15-09-2021
                            Heard through Video Conferencing.

                            Shri S.S. Saini, counsel for the petitioner.
                            Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

This petition is being filed challenging the order dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure P-1), passed by the respondent no.3; whereby, the services of the

petitioner has been transferred from Negori Sector (Project) Amarpur, District Dindori to Sector (Project) Mehandawani, District Dindori.

The challenge is being made on a solitary ground that the daughter of

the petitioner is studying in Class-10th at Maa Saraswati Gyan Academy High School, Samnapur, District Dindori. The documents to the aforesaid effect

are filed along with the petition. It is submitted that as the class-10th is Board examination will be there and she has to prepare under the guidance of the petitioner; therefore, transfer of the petitioner in mid term is not permissible. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Director of School Education, Madras and others Vs. O. Karuppa Thevan and another, reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 666; wherein, mid term transfer was interfered by the Supreme Court. It is submitted that he is ready to comply with the transfer order after the Class-

10th Board examination of her daughter are over. He submits that he will file an undertaking to the aforesaid effect before the competent authorities.

Per contra, State counsel has opposed the prayer stating that he has been transferred on administrative ground at a short distance of 70 kilometers and one Smt. Koushalya Karcham, Supervisor has been transferred in place of the petitioner. The transfer order is dated 31.08.2021, the petitioner must have been relied and the other incumbent must have joined at the transferred place of the petitioner. At this stage, petitioner's counsel submits that no body Signature SAN Not Verified has jointed in place of the petitioner till date. He has further drawn attention of Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2021.09.16 10:43:27 IST 2 WP-18615-2021

this Court to an order passed by the Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.24261/2019 (Vidya Sagar Mishra Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh), order dated 21.11.2019; wherein, in similar circumstances in case of a child

studying in Class-12th having board examination the interim relief was granted to the effect that he will comply with the transfer order after 30.04.2020 i.e.

after the board examinations are over.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The solitary ground for challenge is that the petitioner's daughter is

pursuing her studies in Class-10th and is due to have Board Examination this year; therefore, the presence of the petitioner with her for preparation is required. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the aforesaid aspect in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 666; wherein, the Supreme Court has held as under:-

"The tribunal has erred in law in holding that the respondent employee ought to have been heard before transfer. No law requires an employee to be heard before his transfer when the authorities make the transfer for the exigencies of administration. However, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that in view of the fact that respondent's children are studying in school, the transfer should not have been effected during mid-academic term. Although there is no such rule, we are of the view that in effecting transfer, the fact that the children of an employee are studying should be given due weight, if the exigencies of the service are not urgent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant was unable to point out that there was such urgency in the present case that the employee could not have been accommodated till the end of the current academic year. We, therefore, while setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, direct that the appellant should not effect the transfer till the end of the current academic year. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs."

As the petitioner has submitted that nobody has joined in place of the petitioner and he is ready to furnish an undertaking that after examination of

Class-10th are over, he will comply with the transfer order. In such circumstances, the effect and operation of the impugned order is stayed till

Signature Not 31.04.2022. The petitioner is free to file an application for extension of the SAN Verified

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2021.09.16 10:43:27 IST 3 WP-18615-2021 interim relief granted by this Court if the Board examination are not concluded by that date. In such circumstances, the petition stands disposed of.

Let an undertaking to the aforesaid effect be filed within seven working days before the competent authority.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.

                                                                             (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                                                                  JUDGE


                      taj




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Date: 2021.09.16
10:43:27 IST