Manish Khare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1602 MP

                                                                               1
                                                   The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                             WP No. 11 of 2022
                                                         (MANISH KHARE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                                            Indore, Dated : 04-02-2022
                                                  Heard through Video Conferencing.

                                                  Shri L. C. Patne, learned counsel for the Petitioner .
                                                  Shri    Shrey Raj Saxena, learned Dy.A.G. with Ms. Gitanjali
                                            Chourasia, counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Shri Amit Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No.4.

The present petition is filed being aggrieved by the transfer order dated 9.12.2021 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from district Khargone to Gwalior at the distance of about 650 kms..

Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers. By order dated 21.6.2018 the petitioner was transferred from Dewas to Bhopal. By order dated 5.7.2019 the petitioner was transferred from Bhopal to Indore. By order dated 13.5.2020 the petitioner was transferred from Indore to Khargone and he joined at the present place of posting on 15.5.2020. By the impugned

order he has been transferred from Khargone to Gwalior.

The challenge is made mainly on two grounds, firstly that the petitioner has been transferred at the instance of liquor Mafia as he had taken action against the liquor mafia at Khargone. Secondly, it is submitted that transfer order has been passed in order to accommodate respondent No.4 who is junior to the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner has personal difficulties in carrying out the transfer order as his son is mentally retarded.

Petitioner is holding the post of District Excise Officer, which is class-I post of the district. Admittedly the petitioner is working at the present place of posting since 15.5.2020, therefore it cannot be said that Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN SMT MUKTA KOUSHAL Date: 2022.02.04 the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers. Petitioner has been 17:27:45 IST

transferred from the present place of posting to Gwalior on administrative exigency. Further there is no material to indicate that petitioner has been transferred at the instance of liquor mafia. Bald statement in the writ petition cannot be said to be sufficient for drawing such interference. Another ground of the petitioner that the transfer order

has been passed in order to accommodate the respondent No.4 can also not be accepted because admittedly the petitioner and respondent NO.4 are holding the substantive post of District Excise officer and they are working on the same rank, therefore it cannot be said that any person junior in rank to the petitioner is being accommodated.

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 :-

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN SMT MUKTA KOUSHAL Date: 2022.02.04 17:27:45 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.â€Â​

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN SMT MUKTA KOUSHAL Date: 2022.02.04 17:27:45 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

MK

Signature Not Verified VerifiedDigitally Digitally signed by SAN SMT MUKTA KOUSHAL Date: 2022.02.04 17:27:45 IST