Vinod Kumar Lodhi vs The State Of M.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 5696 MP

                                    1                                 WP-17929-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   WP-17929-2021
                (VINOD KUMAR LODHI Vs THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS)

4
Jabalpur, Dated : 20-09-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.
      Shri Shreyash Pandit, counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri Shrivam Hazari, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

Challenge being made to the transfer order dated 27.08.2021 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary School

Surajpura Khurd District Chattarpur to Government Primary School Dauni, District Chattarpur.

T he challenge is being on the ground that the petitioner is suffering from a slipped disc and there is difficulty in traveling. He has been transferred to a place 200 km away from the present place of posting. The transfer has been done merely on political considerations and there is no administrative exigency in issuing the transfer order. The petitioner has not been relieved till date. He has already preferred a detailed representation to the respondents authorities but till date the same has not been considered and decided. In

such circumstances, he made an innocuous prayer to the respondents directing them to consider and decide the representation.

P er contra, State counsel has opposed the prayer stating that the transfer is on administrative exigencies. The representation submitted by the petitioner will be considered and decided expeditiously. He has relied upon the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S. Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329 and in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P. and Others reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556. In such circumstances, no interim relief can be granted to the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record it is seen that the transfer of the petitioner is 2 WP-17929-2021 done on administrative exigencies. Apart from the personal inconveniences no ground could be pointed out by the petitioner. Therefore, warranting interference in the transfer order. The law is well settled in the case of R.S. Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329 and in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P. and Others reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556. Considering the overall facts

and circumstances of the case, this Court deem it it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondent no.4 supported by all the documents within a period of 7 days from today and in case such a representation is submitted, the respondent no.4 is directed to dwell upon the same and pass a self contained speaking order and communicate the outcome to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Needless to say that this Court has not commented upon the merits of the case.

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

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

Prar

Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2021.09.20 18:22:58 +05'30'