Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Seema Arya vs The State Of M.P. on 21 September, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-19425-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-19425-2021
(SMT. SEEMA ARYA Vs THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 21-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Amit Chaturvedi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Darshan Soni, P.L. for the respondents-State.
Challenge being made to transfer order dated 31.8.2021 (Annexure-P-
1) passed by respondent No.4 whereby, the petitioner has been transferred
from Govt. Middle School Padharudhana Block Bheempur, District Betul to
Govt. Middle School Batlakhurd on administrative ground at a distance of
approximately 150 kms.
It is submitted that petitioner has not completed her normal tenure of
three years and the transfer is violation of Clause 27 of the of the condition
of transfer policy and also against the provision 22 of RTE Act. She is tested
covid-19 positive patient and she is under the treatment and as per the policy,
it is clearly provided that the employee who are covid patient should not be
transferred. She has already submitted a detailed representation to respondent
authorities but the same is kept pending and not yet decided till date. In such
circumstances, interference in transfer order is prayed for. It is prayed that the
authorities be directed to decide the pending representation in fixed time.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and
submitted that the petitioner has been to a distance of 150 Kms. It is argued
that the transfer is a condition of service therefore, no interference is
warranted. Transfer order can only be interfered in certain conditions, in case
of mandatory statutory rule or action is capricious, malicious, cavalier and
fanciful. 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
Signature Not Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by
MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Date: 2021.09.22
11:25:46 IST
2 WP-19425-2021
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.
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 150 Kms. 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 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
b y 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, 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 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
Signature Not
order of his transfer from one place to the other".
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by
MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Date: 2021.09.22
11:25:46 IST
3 WP-19425-2021
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
detailed representation to the respondent No.4 within a period of seven days
and in turn the respondents No.4 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: 2021.09.22
11:25:46 IST
