Girraj Kishor Bohre vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6135 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6135 MP
Judgement Date : 28 September, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Girraj Kishor Bohre vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2021

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

   1     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      WP No.19076/2021
          Girraj Kishor Bohre vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

Gwalior, Dated:28/09/2021

       Shri D.K. Shrivastava, Counsel for the petitioner.

       Shri C.P. Singh, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed against order dated 31.8.2021 by which the petitioner has

been transferred from Government Primary School Ramnagar

(Chomho), Bhind to Government Primary School Pakhojiya, Bhind.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner is working on the post of Primary Teacher and by the

impugned order he has been transferred to Primary School Pakhojiya,

Bhind. Earlier, by order dated 9.8.2019, the petitioner was transferred

to the present place of posting and before completion of his normal

tenure of three years he has been transferred. The petitioner has made

a representation but no heed has been paid. It is submitted that the

father of the petitioner is suffering from paralysis and is the resident

of village Aroli Kali, Tahsil Ater, District Bhind which is at a distance

of 5 Kms. from the present place of posting and the petitioner visits

his father on every evening and gives physiotherapy as per the

instructions of the doctor whereas the petitioner has been transferred

to a place which is about 90 Kms. away from Aroli Kali, Tahsil Ater,

District Bhind, as a result, the life of the father of the petitioner

would be in danger in absence of physiotherapy.

    2     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      WP No.19076/2021
          Girraj Kishor Bohre vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel

for the respondent/State. It is submitted by the counsel for the State

that the transfer is an exigency of service and no one can claim that

he should be posted at a particular place.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The Supreme Court in the case of Namrata Verma Vs. State

of UP and others by order dated 06.09.2021 passed in SLP (Civil)

No.36717/2017 has held that "it is not for the employee to insist to

transfer him/her and/or not to transfer him/her at a particular place. It

is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the

requirement".

It is the case of the petitioner that he has been transferred

before he could complete his normal tenure of three years. It is well

established principle of law that transfer policy is not enforceable by

law and it is merely an executive instructions. Furthermore, the

petitioner could not point out any absolute bar on the transfer of an

employee prior to completion of his tenure of three years. The

petitioner in his entire writ petition has not pleaded as to whether he

has any sibling to look after his father or not. Therefore, it is difficult

to accept that only the petitioner is looking after his father.

Furthermore, from the pleadings it is clear that the petitioner is not

residing with his father and he is residing at a different place.

         3       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                             WP No.19076/2021
                 Girraj Kishor Bohre vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

             Be that as it may.

The Court cannot act as an appellate authority and it is for the

employer to consider the grievances of its employee. The petitioner

has made a representation against the transfer order. Accordingly, in

the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of

Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2015)

MP 2556, it is directed that in case if the petitioner submits his

joining at the transferred place of posting and makes a prayer for a

decision on his representation, then the representation shall be

decided in accordance with law by passing a speaking order.

Needless to mention here that the direction to decide the

representation should not be construed as a direction to allow the

representation and the representation shall be decided strictly in