Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandrika Prasad Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 September, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-19287-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-19287-2021
(CHANDRIKA PRASAD PRAJAPATI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 20-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri K.K.Gautam, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Rahul Deshmukh, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
By filing the present petition under under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the challenge is made to the order dated 31.8.2021
whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Sub Health Centre Mer,
Community Health Centre, Vikrampur to Sub Health Centre Gopalpur,
Community Health Centre Karanjia.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer of
the petitioner is on the basis of the complaint made to the Chief Medical and
Health Officer by one Rakesh Singh Paraste, who happens to be the
President of All India Tribal Development Council. It is also submitted that
on the basis of the letter Annexure P/2, the petitioner has been transferred. As
the petitioner is working on the vacant post and no other person has been
posted in place of the petitioner, therefore, some direction may be given to
the respondent No.3 to consider and decide the pending representation of the
petitioner and till then the petitioner may be permitted to work at the present
place of posting.
Per Contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the
prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the letter
Annexure P/2 neither reflects any date nor any source whrerefrom it has been
obtained by the petitioner. The transfer is a condition of service and the
petitioner has admitted that he has already worked at the present place of
posting for more than three years and he has been transferred at a short
distance of 100 kilometer. The transfer is a condition of service and a
Government employee is bound to comply with the transfer order, therefore,
Signature Not
SAN
Verified no interference is warranted. In support of the said contentions, he has placed
Digitally signed by
AMIT JAIN
Date: 2021.09.21
11:36:37 IST
2 WP-19287-2021
reliance on the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the
cases of R.S.Chaudhary & Others versus State of M.P & Others
reported in I.L.R (2007) M.P 1329 and Mridul Kumar Sharma versus
State of M.P. & Others reported in I.L.R (2015) M.P 2556.
In R.S.Chaudhary (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has
observed as under:-
"Transfer Policy formulated by State is not enforceable as
employee does not have a right and Courts have limited jurisdiction to
interfere in the order of transfer. Court can interfere in case of
mandatory statutory rule or action is capricious, malicious, cavalier and
fanciful. In case of violation of policy, proper remedy is to approach
authorities by pointing out violation and authorities to deal with the same
keeping in mind the policy guidelines."
In Mridul Kumar Sharma (supra), the Division Bench of this Court
has observed as under:-
"Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular
cadre of transferable posts from one place to other is an incident
of service. No Government servant or employee of public
undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place.
Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service
and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one
place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the
Public Administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred,
he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty
in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation
to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of
the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified,
or cancelled, the concerned public servant must carry out the order
of transfer. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance to the
Signature Not
SAN
Verified transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action
Digitally signed by
AMIT JAIN
Date: 2021.09.21
11:36:37 IST
3 WP-19287-2021
under the relevant rules, as has happened in the instant case. The
respondent lost his service as he refused to comply with the order
of his transfer from one place to the other."
In view of the aforesaid, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State
submits that the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file a
representation before the competent authority for redressal of his grievances.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
On perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner has been
transferred at a short distance of 100 kilometer from Sub Health Centre Mer,
Community Health Centre, Vikrampur to Sub Health Centre Gopalpur,
Community Health Centre Karanjia. No other ground has been raised by the
petitioner except that his transfer is on the recommendations made by the
letter Annexure P/2 but he could not point out the source from which the
letter Annexure P/2 has been obtained by him. There is no date reflected on
the letter Annexure P/2 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the transfer of the
petitioner has been made in pursuance of the letter Annexure P/2. The transfer
of the petitioner is after the recommendations of the Minister concerned.
Thus, as per the settled legal proposition of law rendered in
R.S.Chaudhary (supra) & Mridul Kumar Sharma (supra), the only relief
which can be granted to the petitioner is to file a representation before the
competent authority for redressal of his grievances and such representation
can be directed to be considered & decided at an early date.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as
the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, this writ petition is disposed of with
a direction to the petitioner to resubmit a fresh representation alongwith
relevant documents to the respondent No.4 within a period of seven days and
in turn the respondent No.4 is directed to dwell upon such representation and
pass a self-contained speaking order in the said representation within a period
of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Signature
SAN
Verified
Not Needless to say that this Court has not commented upon the merits of
Digitally signed by
AMIT JAIN
Date: 2021.09.21
11:36:37 IST
4 WP-19287-2021
the case.
With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
amit
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
AMIT JAIN
Date: 2021.09.21
11:36:37 IST
