Purshottam Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1650 MP

                                                                 1
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                          BEFORE
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                   ON THE 4th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                                             WRIT PETITION No. 18692 of 2021

                                Between:-
                                PURSHOTTAM YADAV S/O SHRI MUNNALAL
                                YADAV   , AGED   ABOUT    39 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: WORKING AS AUSHADHALAYA
                                SEWAK GOVT. YURVEDIC AUSHADHALAYA
                                HEEVER KHEDI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                    .....PETITIONER
                                (BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR MALVI, ADVOCATE )

                                AND

                      1.        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS
                                PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
                                AYUSH VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL M.P.
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.        COMMISSIONER / DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE
                                AYU S H ADHAR TAL D WING SATPUDA
                                BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
                                (BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, PL FOR STATE)
                                                (Heard through Video Conferencing)
                              This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the

                      following:
                                                                  ORDER

This petition has been filed by petitioner being aggrieved of transfer order dated 31/08/2021 (Annexure P-1), whereby petitioner who was working as Aushadhalaya Sewak is transferred from Government Ayurvedic Aushadhyala Heererkhedi District Betul to Government Ayurvedic Aushadhalaya Ameerganj District Sehore on administrative exigency. The main ground to challenge impugned transfer order is that petitioner suffers from 40% handicap and therefore he should not have been transferred out of his present place of posting in view of provisions contained in Para 26 of the transfer policy.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner is suffering from polio of one leg, therefore being a handicapped person he should not have been transferred.

The respondents have filed exhaustive return and have submitted that post of Aushadhalaya Signature SAN Not Sewak is a transferable post. Stipulation in the policy is only to the effect that person suffering Verified

Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Date: 2022.02.05 11:34:53 IST

from 40% or more disability should normally not be transferred. That stipulation is not binding on the State inasmuch as in case of exigency of administration transfer can be effected. It is further submitted that petitioner was appointed under the handicap quota only. Polio in one leg is not such type of disability that petitioner cannot discharge his normal duties at the transferred place. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India & others Vs. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 to point out that transfer is an incidence of service and normally should not be interfered with by the Court, in absence of any malafide or violation

of any statutory provisions. Reliance is also placed on some judgment in the case of R.S Chaudhari Vs. State of M.P but citation is not mentioned in the return. Learned Panel Lawyer is not in a position to point out exact citation of the case.

Taking into consideration the fact and law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & others Vs. S.L.. Abbas, in absence of malafide or violation of any statutory provision, transfer order cannot be assailed, I do not find any ground of interference in the exercise of an administrative discretion of the authorities in transferring the petitioner from one place to another. Therefore, petition fails and is dismissed.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Certified copy as per rules.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE tarun