Smt. Padma Krishne vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5736 MP

                                                          1                              WP-18504-2021
                                 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                            WP-18504-2021
                                 (SMT. PADMA KRISHNE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                      2
                      Jabalpur, Dated : 21-09-2021
                            Heard through Video Conferencing.
                            Shri Satyendra Jyotishi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                            Shri Shivam Hazari, learned panel lawyer for the respondents/State.

Challenge is being made to transfer order dated 29.08.2021 (Annexure- P-1) passed by respondent No.3 whereby, the petitioner has been transferred

from Government Primary School, Amoda, District-Jabalpur to Government Middle School, Aamatitha, Kundam, District-Jabalpur. The ground on which the challenge is made is that the transfer place is at a distance of 85 kms and it will be very difficult on the part of petitioner to join the transfer place of posting.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is suffering from various ailments and the medical documents are filed pointing out the ailments. The another ground which has been taken is that, transfer order is contrary to the statutory provision of RTE Act, 2009 as the students teacher

ratio is not being maintained by passing the order. There should be 3 teachers between 90 students in Primary School and where the petitioner is posted at present, the total number of students in the school is 94 and 3 teachers are posted and the sanction post is 3 but due to the transfer of the petitioner there would be only 2 teacher remains. By the impugned order the petitioner has only been transferred and nobody has joined in the present place of petitioner. It is submitted that the transfer is in gross violation of the RTE Act. It is submitted that the petitioner has already submitted a detailed representation to respondent No.3 but the same is kept pending and has not yet been decided till date. In such circumstances, interference in transfer order is prayed for. An innocuous prayer is made that the authorities be

Signature Not directed to decide the pending representation within the stipulated time and SAN Verified

Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2021.09.24 16:06:22 IST 2 WP-18504-2021 till then the petitioner may be permitted to continue at the present place of posting i.e. Government Primary School, Amoda, District-Jabalpur.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner has been transferred at a short distance of 85 Kms. The medical document which are filed for seeking interim relief does not show any medical emergency and are old documents. As far as the

violation of RTE Act is concerned, the transfer order reflects a solitary transfer of the petitioner and some other order must have been passed by the authorities transferring and posting the other teacher in place of the petitioner. The petitioner could not point out the same, therefore, in absence of such contentions the argument advanced with respect to maintaining the students and teachers ratio are not available to the petitioner. It is argued that the transfer is a condition of service therefore, no interference is warranted. However , he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by 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 Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556 and has submitted that the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file a representation before the competent authority for redressal of his grievances. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Counsel for the State has brought to the notice of this Court, orders passed by this Bench in which similar petitions were disposed of directing the authorities to decide the representation Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. O n perusal of the record, it is seen that that the petitioner has been transferred to a distant place of 85 Kms and the transfer is made on administrative ground. None of the grounds have been raised by the petitioner which warrant any interference in the transfer order. The law in respect to transfer of an employee is settled in the aforesaid cases, wherein the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Chaudhary Vs. State of Signature SAN Not Verified

Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2021.09.24 16:06:22 IST 3 WP-18504-2021 M.P. and others reported in ILR (2007) MP 1329 has held 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."

The Division Bench of this Court in Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. Reported in I.L.R (2015) MP 2556, has held 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, o r 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 transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action 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".

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to resubmit a fresh representation to the respondent No.3 within a period of seven days and in turn the respondents No.3 is directed to dwell upon the representation and pass a self contained speaking order within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and communicate the outcome to the petitioner.

Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

                                                                                             (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                                                                                  JUDGE


                      irfan


Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Date: 2021.09.24
16:06:22 IST