Narayan Manohare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5981 MP

                                 1                               WP-18304-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   WP-18304-2021
         (NARAYAN MANOHARE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

2
Jabalpur, Dated : 24-09-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.
      Shri P.S Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri Shivam Hazari, learned PL for the respondent/State.

This petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the transfer order dated 31/08/2021(annexure-P/1) whereby the petitioner has been

transferred from Girls Primary School Savangi, Aathner District Betul to Primary School Bhurmur, Bheempur District Betul.

Challenge being made basically only on the three grounds that the petitioner is the Block President of Tribal Welfare Teachers Association and is generally raising voice of the Association, therefore, he could not be transferred in pursuance to Clause 33 of the Transfer Policy. Other ground is taken that the petitioner at the present place of posting, two teachers are functioning in the school out of them, petitioner has been transferred by the impugned order. Transferring the petitioner will adversely affect the academic

sessions of the students. Petitioner is not a surplus teacher in the school therefore, transferring the petitioner is on administrative ground is again contrary to the Transfer Policy. The third ground which is taken that the petitioner is having old aged mother and father aged about 70 years and 80 years respectively and there is nobody in the family to take care of them. In such circumstance, he has already preferred a detailed representation which is pending consideration before the respondent No.2 and has not yet been decided till date. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.18268/2021 (Deveedas Nagle Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) decided on 14/09/2021, wherein the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation and till the decision on the 2 WP-18304-2021 representation the petitioner of that case was permitted to continue at the present place of posting. He prays for similar relief being granted to him stating that the petitioner is still working and not been relieved till date.

Per contra, counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer and has contended that the transfer is a condition of service and a Government servant is always duty bound to comply with the transfer order

as the petitioner is continuously working at the present place of posting since 2009 and by impugned transfer order on administrative ground he has been transferred at a short distance of 150 Kms. Only personal inconveniences have been shown by the petitioner which cannot be a ground for interference in the transfer order as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of R.S.Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2007) MP 1329 and Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556. It is further submitted that as far as the President of Union is concerned and violation of Clause 33 of the Transfer Policy is concerned, the aforesaid aspect was duly considered by the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P No.17800/2021 decided on 09/09/2021 petitioner could not distinguish the aforesaid judgments. In such circumstances, only relief which can be extended to the petitioner is to direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the pending representation within a stipulated time frame. It is contended that if such a representation is filed, the authorities will consider and decide the representation within a short period of time.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner has been transferred after almost 12 years at a short distance of 150 kms on administrative grounds. The grounds regarding violation of Clause 33 of the Transfer Policy has already been considered and decided by this court in the case of Balram Dhakar (supra). As far as the other grounds are concerned there are general and humanitarian grounds which cannot be the ground for 3 WP-18304-2021 interference in the transfer order in view of the law laid down in 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 wherein the Court 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, 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 t o 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".

In such circumstances, the only relief which can be extended to the petitioner is to direct the petitioner to file a fresh and detailed representation to the respondent No.2 within a period of 7 days and in case such a representation is preferred, the respondent No.2 is directed 4 WP-18304-2021

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.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

Prar

Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2021.09.29 11:40:38 +05'30'