Ramgopal Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6250 MP

                                    1                             WP-20859-2021
           The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                      WP-20859-2021
            (RAMGOPAL SHUKLA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

1
Jabalpur, Dated : 30-09-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.
      Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri S.K Singh, learned PL for the respondent/State.

The consent of parties the matter is finally heard. T he present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the

impugned transfer order dated 31/08/2021 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary School Madumar Bhata, District Tikamgarh to Government Primary School Rampura, District Tikamgarh at a distance about 50 km away.

It is alleged that aforesaid transfer is just to accommodate to respondent No.5 by transferring the petitioner in Clause 33 of the transfer policy is violated that he is holding the post of Treasurer of Tehsil Tikamgarh of Registered Union and the transfer is politically motivated as it is on the recommendation of the Leader of the Ruling Party. The petitioner matters

have settled by this Court as far as violation of Clause 33 is concerned in W.P No.17800/2021 dated 09/09/2021 as per Ruling Party is concerned. It is argued that the transfer of respondent No.5 is made on political interference and just to accommodate the respondent no.5 the petitioner has been transferred from the present place of posting. Considering 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 and in the case of K.S.Verma Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2011) MP 1720 and the interim relief was continued. He has submitted that the representation to the respondent authorities which is pending consideration and not decided till date. In such circumstances an innocuous prayer has been made to get the representation decided within stipulated time frame and 2 WP-20859-2021 till the decision of the representation, the petitioner may permitted to work at the present place of posting.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer stating that transfer is the condition of service. The transfer order has been on administrative ground. He has relied upon the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S Choudhary and others V. State of

M.P and others, ILR (2007) MP 1329 wherein, in similar circumstances, the guidelines for consideration of matters of transfer has been taken into account. He has prayed for dismissed of the petition, however no objection is regarding decision on representation within a stipulated time frame.

Consideration overall facts and circumstance of the case and also the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S Choudhary and others V. State of M.P and others (Supra), wherein the Division Bench of this Court 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".

Second ground taken by the petitioner with respect to the transfer being made a political interference by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P and others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150 held as under:

" 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 3 WP-20859-2021 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 depends on the facts and circumstances of an individual case. In the present case, there is no infirmity in the impugned transfer order."

I n the facts and circumstances of the case, this court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation within seven days from today to the respondent no. 5- authority and in turn the respondent no. 5 is directed to dwell upon the representation and pass self contained speaking order and outcome of the same be communicated to the petitioner within 15 days from the date of

receipt of certified copy of the order. In such circumstances, no interim relief shall be granted to the petitioner.

Needless to mention here that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

Prar

Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2021.10.02 11:55:59 +05'30'