Smt. Anjula Jha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6249 MP

                                    1                                WP-9638-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   WP-9638-2021
            (SMT. ANJULA JHA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


Jabalpur, Dated : 30-09-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri A.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent

Nos.1 to 4/State.

Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the order Annexure-P/1 dated 19.05.2021 whereby she has been directed to be transferred from Jabalpur to Satna.

The counsel for the petitioner is challenging the impugned order inter alia on the ground that it is nothing but an accommodation of respondent No.5 and the petitioner because of said reason has been transferred within a short period of three months. He submits that in such a circumstance, the impugned order is illegal.

Shri A.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for

respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that originally the petitioner was to be accommodated at Satna, but she had been transferred from Singrauli to Jabalpur on 04.03.2021 and now she is being accommodated again at Satna by issuing the impugned order. He submits that the petitioner in compliance of the impugned order dated 19.05.2021 has already joined and performing her duties at Satna at present.

Considering the aforesaid, the ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is in fact not sustainable in the eye of law that too in respect of transfer of an employee who is holding transferable post, short term transfer is permissible under the law and it is a trite law that in a matter of transfer, the High Court exercising the jurisdiction of Article 226 of Constitution can interfere in the order of transfer only when the order is issued in violation of any statutory provision or with mala fide intention and further if the order 2 WP-9638-2021 appears to be arbitrary. Since, none of the ground is available with the petitioner and the impugned order has not been assailed on the said grounds, therefore, in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar reported in 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659 and also by this Court in case of R.S. Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. and

others reported in ILR 2007 MP 1329 and Rambabu Devangan Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2015(4) MPLJ 290, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order of transfer, therefore, this petition is dismissed as without any substance.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the competent authority and if the same is done, the authority can consider the request of the petitioner accommodating her at a place where she wants to be posted if post is lying vacant or if no inconvenience is caused to the respondents.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE

ac/-

ANIL CHOUDHARY 2021.10.01 18:17:45 +05'30'