Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashvini Katariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 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 27th OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 8944 of 2022
Between:-
ASHVINI KATARIYA S/O SHRI VIJAY KATARIYA
OCCUPATION: ASST. PENSION OFFICER DISTRICT
PENSION OFFICE MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.C. RAIKWAR, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTORATE OF
TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS, PRAYAVAS BHAWAN
ARERA HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. MARJURI DHORPADE MATRON DISTRICT
HOSPITAL MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS.DRISHTI RAWAL, PL )
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is second visit of the petitioner before this Court. In the earlier round
the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22/2/2022 passed by the respondent
No.2 whereby the petitioner was transferred and posted from District Pension
Office, Mandsaur to AIDS Control Society, Bhopal. The challenge was mainly on
the ground that after revocation of the suspension order, the petitioner has been
posted to a distant place of about 400 km. The said petition was disposed off
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
with a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation
SAN VARGHESE
MATHEW
Date: 2022.04.27
17:45:54 IST
of the petitioner. In compliance of the said order, the representation of the
petitioner has been considered and decided and rejected by the impugned order
dated 10/4/2022.
The respondents have stated that the petitioner has been posted after
reinstatement from the suspension order on the equallent post. The order has been
issued on administrative exigency.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already completed normal tenure of
posting at one place and the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by
the competent authority stating that the transfer order has been issued on
administrative exigency.
Counsel for petitioner submits that the respondents have not considered the
contention of the petitioner that the transfer order has been issued in violation of
the transfer policy. The transfer policy is not enforceable by law.
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.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN
No government servant or employee of a public
VARGHESE
MATHEW
Date: 2022.04.27
17:45:54 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
VM
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN VARGHESE
MATHEW
Date: 2022.04.27
17:45:54 IST
