Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arpit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 April, 2022
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 11th OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 8317 of 2022
Between:-
ARPIT S/O SHRI T.C. JAIN , AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE GUNA NAKA BYAWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AJAY JAIN-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DEPUTY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOOD,
CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CONTROLLER LEGAL METROLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES
CONSUMER PROTECTION HOSHANGABAD ROAD,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ADITYA GARG-GOVT.ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This is third round of litigation challenging the legality and validity of the
transfer order dated 31.8.2021 by which the petitioner has been transferred from
the post of Inspector, Weight and Measurement from district Rajgarh to Umaria.
The petitioner had challenged the said order in writ petition No.16988/2021.
The said writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer a
fresh representation before the respondent No.2 within 7 days and respondent
No.2 was directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of
10 days by passing a speaking order. Thereafter the representation of the petitioner
was rejected by order dated 28.10.2021 by speaking order. The petitioner filed
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
another writ petition No.24313/2021 challenging the same transfer order. It seems
SAN MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHA
R KOUSHAL
Date: 2022.04.11
17:37:59 IST that it was not informed to the court that representation of the petitioner in
compliance to the previous order dated 3.09.2021 passed in writ petition No.
16988/2021 had already been rejected by order dated 28.10.2021. The second Writ
Petition was also disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh
representation within one week and the respondent was directed to pass a reasoned
and speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. This order
dated 10.11.2021 in Writ Petition No.24313/2021 was passed in assumption that
representation of the petitioner had not been decided by the competent authority.
In compliance to the previous order the respondents have passed another order
dated 9.3.2022 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The respondents have
passed a detailed and speaking order while deciding the case of the petitioner for
transfer.
Admittedly the petitioner is posted at present place of posting since 2019
and has completed normal tenure of 3 years.
Law relating to scope of interference in the transfer matter is no longer res
integra, as held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Gujrat Electricity Board and
another vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, (1989) 2 SCC 602; Union of India and
others vs. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 and the judgment passed by a Division
Bench of this Court in the case of R.S. Choudhary vs. State of M.P. and others,
2007(2) ILR MP Series 1329, the transfer is an incidence of service and the
transfer order can only be interfered by the Court of law if the transfer is issued in
violation of the statutory rules or the order suffers from malafide exercise of
power.
The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and another Vs. Siya Ram
and another (2004) 7 SCC 405 ruled that an employee should be posted where it
has to be decided by the employer and an employee has no right to claim posting
at a particular place. The relevant extract reads as under :-
"5. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India had
gone into the question as to whether the transfer was in
the interest of public service. That would essentially
require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned.
No government servant or employee of a public
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHA
R KOUSHAL
Date: 2022.04.11
17:37:59 IST undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at
any one particular place or place of his choice since
transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class
or category of transferable posts from one place to other
is not only an incident, but a condition of service,
necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the
public administration. Unless an order of transfer is
shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated
to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any
such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot
interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as
though they were appellate authorities substituting their
own decision for that of the employer/management, as
against such orders passed in the interest of
administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This
position was highlighted by this Court in National
Hydroelectric Power Corpn.Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan,
(2001) 8 SCC574.
The petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant petition, the petitioner could
not establish any breach of statutory rule or a case of malafide.
In view of aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.
Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHA
R KOUSHAL
Date: 2022.04.11
17:37:59 IST
