Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Ashok Kumar Dixit vs Rajmata Vijyaraje Sindhya ... on 25 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 25th OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 995 of 2022
Between:-
DR. ASHOK KUMAR DIXIT S/O SHRI NAKCHHED
DIXIT , AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE KRISHI VIGYAN KENDRA DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANOJ MANAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJMATA VIJYARAJE SINDHYA AGRICULTURE
UNIVERSITY GWALIOR THR. ITS VICE
CHANCELLOR GWOLIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. R EGI S TR AR RAJMATA VIJYARAJE SINDHYA
AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. DR. S.K. BADAYA OCCUPATION: PROFESSOR
AGRICULTURE SCIENCE CENTRE DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANIKET NAIK - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND
2.)
T h is petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
being aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2022, whereby the petitioner has been transferred
from Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Dewas to Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Agar Malwa.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as Professor and was
posted in Agriculture Science Centre, Dewas. He was earlier posted at Ujjain and due to
some cardiac problem, he was later on transferred from Ujjain to Dewas for taking regular
treatment. It is also mentioned that he is suffering from Cardiac heart problem and
regularly taking the treatment from Ujjain, Dewas and Indore.
It is further submitted that the aforesaid transfer order has been issued in cross
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.04.25 violation of the transfer policy.
17:50:44 IST
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have
discriminated the petitioner in issuing the transfer order. He submits that in
recommendation of committee dated 03.01.2022, the transfer of all three employees
including the petitioner and two complainants were recommended. Further, later the
respondents have cancelled the transfer of the two complainants but discriminated the
present petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 submitted that the transfer order
has been made on administrative exigency. It is submitted that against the petitioner two
complaints by Dr.Laxmi and Mrs.Ankita Pandey have been filed regarding sexual
harassment, on which FIR was registered. The committee was constituted on the basis of
complaint filed by the Dr.Laxmi and Mrs. Ankita Pandey against the petitioner. Thereafter
again a complaint was filed against the petitioner and as per the judgment given in the case
of Vishakha and Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors reported in AIR 1997 SC 3011, the
committee was constituted by the university on account of allegations leveled by the
complainants in respect of sexual harassment. Though, the six member committee have
submitted their report that they did not find any proof of the allegations against the
petitioner because the complainant could not produce any documentary evidence.
However, since the petitioner has already completed three years tenure at Dewas, and
therefore, he has been transferred on administrative exigency.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already completed three years tenure at the
present place of posting. The transfer order has been issued on administrative exigency.
Further, there was a complaint against the petitioner by two complainants Dr.Laxmi and
Mrs.Ankita Pandey. Though their allegations have not been found proved against the
petitioner by the committee but the continuation of the petitioner at the present place of
posting would not be desirable.
The contention of the petitioner that he has been discriminated in the transfer order
cannot be accepted. Who should be posted where has to be decided by the employer and
therefore, the employer has to decide who has to continue at which place. The cancellation
of transfer of two complainants would not confer any right to the petitioner to claim
continuation at the present place of posting.
The transfer is a instance of service. 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
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.04.25
17:50:44 IST
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 :-
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.04.25
17:50:44 IST
"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 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.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.04.25
17:50:44 IST
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
Sourabh
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.04.25
17:50:44 IST
