Achchelal Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5982 MP

                                    1                             WP-18401-2021
           The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                      WP-18401-2021
           (ACHCHELAL KUSHWAHA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

1
Jabalpur, Dated : 24-09-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.
      Shri A.K Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri Shivam Hazari, learned PL for the respondent/State.

The present petition is filed by the petitioner is challenging the impugned transfer order dated 30/08/2021 passed by respondent No.4

whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Govt. Higher Secondary School Aston, District Tikamgarh to Govt. High School Chandpura at a distance of approximately more than 80 kms from the present place of posting.

It is stated that the transfer is made due to political interference on the basis of the letter written by respondent No.7 on 27/07/2021, who is a Leader of the Ruling Party. Another ground is taken that the wife of the petitioner is seriously ill and she is continuously under treatment since 2016 and requires regular treatment. A detailed representation has been filed by the petitioner to

the respondent authorities but the same is pending for consideration and not been decided till date. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2009 (2) SCC 592, that the transfer is made upon the interference of the Ruling Party Leader therefore, interference should made in the matter. He has further relied upon the judgement passed by this Court in W.P No.883/2020 (Arvind Kumar Rawat Vs. State of M.P and others) dated 04/02/2020 wherein the interim relief was granted to the petitioner of that case. Looking to the similar facts and circumstances of the case as he has already preferred a detailed representation to the respondent authorities, the same may be considered and decided in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) and till the decision of 2 WP-18401-2021 representation, he may be permitted to continue at the present place of posting.

Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner has been transferred at a short distance of 80 kms. The letter Annexure-P/2 dated 27/07/2021 has been filed along with the writ petition but the source of this letter is not demonstrated by the petitioner in

the entire petition. The transfer order does not reflect a complaint made against the petitioner on the administrative ground. Therefore, the aforesaid ground is not available to the petitioner. The judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) is concerned but the petitioner himself would not establish the fact that the transfer is made on political interference, therefore, the aforesaid judgment does not help to the petitioner other ground with respect to wife of the petitioner is concerned, no current documents pointing out the medical emergency are filed. A detailed representation is filed by the petitioner to the respondent authorities it is contended that the same will be considered and decided by the respondent authorities expeditiously. He has relied upon the judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case 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 . Wherein the reliefs which have been interference in the transfer order.

Counsel appearing for the State has further submitted that the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P and others, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150 to point out the fact that the recommendation from a local Leader can be made for transferring an employee.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. The ground which has been raised in the petition for seeking interference in the transfer order is concerned, that the political interference. The aforesaid aspect was duly considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd 3 WP-18401-2021 Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P and others, (supra) wherein it is held under:-

"Since the petitioner was on a transferable post, the High Court has rightly dismissed his writ petition because transfer is an exigency of service and is an administrative decision. Interference by the courts with transfer orders should only be in very rare cases. As repeatedly held in several decisions of the Supreme Court, transfer is an exigency of service. It should not be interfered with ordinarily by the court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the

orders.

Even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order, It is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official, the State Government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard-and- fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an MP or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of an individual case. In the present case, there is no infirmity in the impugned transfer order "

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate the fact that the transfer is on political interference that was a source of letter which has been obtained by the petitioner could not be shown by him. As per the another ground is concerned there are general ground which cannot be taken into consideration for grant of interim relief. No medical emergency could be pointed out from the documents. Thus, the interim relief cannot be granted to the petitioner. However, looking to the judgment passed in the case 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 .

4 WP-18401-2021 Relief which can be extended to the petitioner as to direct the authority to dispose of the petition. In such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this petition, directing the petitioner to prefer a detailed representation to the respondent No.4 within a period of seven days and in case such a representation is preferred, 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 30 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 is disposed of.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

Prar

Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2021.09.29 11:39:26 +05'30'