Ojha Dhurve vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6132 MP

                                                         1                                  WP-18967-2021
                         The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                    WP-18967-2021
                              (OJHA DHURVE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

           1
           Jabalpur, Dated : 28-09-2021
                   Heard through Video Conferencing.
                   Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                   Shri Jagat Singh, learned panel lawyer for the respondents/State.

Challenge being made to the transfer order dated 31.08.2021; whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary School Kursana Block,

Chicholi, District Betul to Government Primary School, Dhuttapura Block Shahpur District Betul.

The grounds for challenging the transfer order is that the petitioner's wife is also working in Government Primary School, Amapura, Block Chicholi on the post of Primary Teacher, therefore, the transfer of the petitioner is in violation of Clause 23 of the transfer policy. The transferred place of posting is about 80 kms away from the present place of posting. It is submitted that a detailed representation has already been preferred by the petitioner which is pending consideration before the respondents/authorities requesting for modification of the order of transfer of the

petitioner considering clause 23 of the transfer policy. It is further submitted that he has submitted a representation for transferring at a nearby place or at the place where the wife is working pointing out the fact that the vacant post is still available.

An innocuous prayer is made to direct the respondents/authorities to consider and decide the pending representation within a short time and as the petitioner has not been relieved till date, he may be permitted to continue at the present place of posting.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by the petitioner to decide the representation but as far as interim relief is concerned, it is objected by the State counsel pointing out the fact that no such ground has been pointed out by the petitioner warranting interference in the transfer order, only violation of Clause 23 of the transfer policy is pointed out for

Signature which Not the only remedy available to the petitioner is to get the representation decided at SAN Verified

Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2021.09.28 17:56:03 IST 2 WP-18967-2021 an early date, in view of the judgment 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 Division Bench of this Court has held that the only remedy against the violation of the terms of the transfer policy is to get the representation decided. It is submitted that the representation of the petitioner will be considered and decided

expeditiously.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner has been transferred in the same district at a short distance. The transfer is a condition of service and law in respect of transfer is settled 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.

Considering the fact that the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation 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 submit a detailed representation to respondent No.4 within a period of seven days and in turn respondent 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.

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

                                                                               (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                                                                    JUDGE


           AM




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
ANINDYA SUNDAR
MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2021.09.28
17:56:03 IST