Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Reena Churiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 September, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
-1-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
Writ Petition No.18442/2021
Dr. Reena Churiya v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Indore, dated 15.09.2021
Shri Shailendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Archana Kher, learned Deputy Advocate General for
the respondent / State.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Heard on admission.
The petitioner, a Medical Officer is aggrieved by the
transfer order dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure-P/3), whereby she is
transferred from Civil Hospital, Mhow (Indore) to District
Hospital, Budhanpur on administrative grounds.
Criticizing this order, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the order is bad in law because (i) petitioner was
recently promoted on the said post by order dated 07.06.2021
(Annexure-P/4) and within short span of time from promotion,
she is subjected to transfer (ii) the petitioner is an unmarried
woman and her aged and ailing mother is living with her and this
transfer may create personal inconvenience to both and (iii)
petitioner is transferred to a distance of 300 kms and when her
mercy representation is pending before respondent No.2, she
could not be relieved till decision of the representation.
During the course of arguments, it is also argued by
learned counsel for the petitioner that transfer order is not arising
out of any administrative exigency. Indeed it is malicious transfer
order.
The prayer is opposed by learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent / State.
The promotion order shows that petitioner was promoted
on the same place namely Mhow (Indore) and said promotion did
not result into any change of place of posting. Learned cousnel
for the petitioner although argued that transfer order is malafide,
nobody eo nomine is impleaded against whom allegations of
malafide are alleged.
Thus, in view of (2004) 12 SCC 390 (Medley Minerals
India Limited v/s State of Orissa & Others), (1995) 2 SCC 57
(State of Punjab & Others v/s Chaman Lal Goyal), (2015) 1
SCC 642 (Rajendra Kumar Agrawal v/s State of Uttar Pradesh
& Others), (2020) 3 SCC 86 (Rajneesh Khajuria v/s Wockhardy
Limited & Another) and judgment of this Court in 2011 (3)
M.P.H.T. 479 (Bhagwat Singh Verma v/s The State of Madhya
Pradesh & Others), the allegations of malafide cannot be
entertained.
The transfer order can be interfered with if it violates any
statutory provision (not policy guideline), proved to be malafide,
passed by incompetent authority or changes service conditions of
an employee to her detriment. No such ingredients are available
in the petition.
At this stage by interrupting the Court (without seeking
permission), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was earlier transferred by order dated 16.07.2017
(Annexure-P/2). This order, in my opinion will not improve the
case of the petitioner because it was passed four years back. In
absence of any ingredients on the basis of which interference can
be made, interference is declined.
The respondents shall consider and decide the
representation of the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a
period of three weeks from the date of communication of this
order.
The petition stands disposed of.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
Ravi
Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH
Date: 2021.09.16 10:15:14 +05'30'
