Dr. Rajaram Arya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1957 MP

      The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Bench At Indore

                              WP No.2296/2022
                    (Dr.Rajaram Arya Vs. State of MP)                          1

INDORE; DATED - 11/02/2022
      Shri Praveen Kachole, learned counsel for the Petitioner .
      Shri Valmik Sakargayen, learned counsel for respondent/State.

This is a second round of litigation. In the first round, the

petitioner in Writ Petition No. 17084/2021 has challenged the transfer

order dated 31.8.2021 whereby the services of the petitioner have been

transferred from Government P.G. College, Khargone to Government

College, Sahrai, District Ashok Nagar. The said writ petition was

disposed of by this Court with a direction to the petitioner to submit a

representation before the respondent No.1, who was directed to decide

the said representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order. By

order dated 20.1.2021 the said representation of the petitioner has been

rejected. The respondents while considering the representation of the

petitioner has ascribed the following reason :-

dz- LFkkukarj.k fujLRk fd;s tkus ds vk/kkj foHkkxh; vfHker

LFkkukarj.k uhfr dh dafMdk&23 esa izko/kku gS fd ^^ ifr&ifRu ds Lo;a ds fy, vkosnu i= izkIr gksus ij esjh ifRu Jhefr izfrHkk vk;Z] lgk;d LFkkukarj.k gks ldsxk] ijUrq oxZ&03 ds in ij uxj ikfydk inLFkkiuk dk LFkku iz'kkldh; 1 [kjxksu es inLFk gS ,oa iq= vkfnR; vko';drk ds vuq:i fu/kkZfjr fogkj gk;j lsd.Mjh Ldwy esa 11 oh gksxkA bldk vk'k; ;g ugha gS fd d{kk esa gSA ifr&ifRu ;fn ,d gh [email protected][;ky; esa dk;Zjr gS rks mudk LFkkukarj.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA

esjh ekrkth vfurk vk;Z dh mez 80 o"kZ gS ,oa esjs cM+s HkkbZ daslj ls ihfM+r ftyk v'kksduxj esa fpfdRlk

gS ftudk bZykt esjs n~okjk gh djk;k lqfo/kk miyC/k gSA tk jgk gSA The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Bench At Indore

WP No.2296/2022

'kkldh; ihth egkfon~;ky;] [kjxksu esa Hkwxksy fo"k; esa dqy 450 3 LFkkukarj.k uhfr ls lacaf/kr ugha gSA [email protected]=k,a v/;;ujr~ gSA ;g vkfnoklh ckgqY; ftyk gSA

egkfon~;ky; esa dsoy 04 fo"k; ds 'kks/kdsUnz gS ftuesa ls ,d Hkwxksy fo"k;

Hkh gS vkSj esa mDRk fo"k; esa ,dek= 4 'kks/k funsZ'kd gwWaA MkW- vk;Z dk LFkkukarj.k iz'kklfud vko';drk ,oa Nk=o`fRr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs fd;k x;k gSA

MkW- jktkjke vk;Z] lgk;d izk/;kid] Hkwxksy ds in ij 'kkldh; LukrdksRrj egkfon~;ky;] [kjxksu esa foxr~ 15 o"kksZ ls inLFk gSA MkW- vk;Z dk LFkkukarj.k iz'kklfud vko';drk ds vuqlkj fd;k x;k gSA jkT; 'kklu ,rn~ n~okjk MkW- vk;Z n~okjk izLRrqr vH;kosnu iw.kZ fopkjksijkar vekU; djrk gSA Counsel for the petitioner submits that transfer order has been

issued in violation of the transfer policy.

The petitioner is posted at Khargone. He is posted at present place

of posting for about last 15 years. Thus he has already stayed for

considerable time at one place. He has no right to continue at one place

for all the time. The respondents have passed a detailed and reasoned

order rejecting the representation of the petitioner.

The 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 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Bench At Indore

WP No.2296/2022

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 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 High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Bench At Indore

WP No.2296/2022

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

Digitally signed by SMT MUKTA KOUSHAL Date: 2022.02.11 17:09:56 +05'30'