Mavis John vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1101 MP

                                                                      1
                                           The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                    WP No. 26066 of 2021
                                                 (MAVIS JOHN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                                   Indore, Dated : 24-01-2022
                                         Heard through Video Conferencing.

                                         Shri Aishwary Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                                         Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State.

This is second round of litigation. Earlier the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the transfer order dated 23.8.2021. The representation of the petitioner against the transfer order has also been

rejected by order dated 23.10.2021.

The challenge to the transfer order and the rejection of the representation has been made mainly on the ground that the petitioner was having the additional charge of Warden and no order of cancellation regarding the additional charge of the Warden has been passed by the respondents.

Petitioner has no right to claim the additional charge of the post of Warden. The substantive post of the petitioner is Madhyamik Shikshak on which he has been transferred. Apart from the aforesaid, the petitioner has already joined at the transferred place.

In the present case, the impugned transfer order has been issued on administrative ground and 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, AIR1993 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 Courts of law if the transfer is issued in violation of the statutory rules or the order suffers from malafide exercise of powers. The petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference under Signature Not Verified SAN Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Digitally signed by DEEPA MISHRA Date: 2022.01.27 12:14:08 IST

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by DEEPA MISHRA Date: 2022.01.27 12:14:08 IST