Dr.Virendra Singhmare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 307 MP

             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                           W.P.No.26198/2021
          ( Dr.Virendra Singhmare Vs. State of M.P. and others)
                                     (1)



Jabalpur, dated : 06.01.2022

      Shri Praveen Kumar Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
      Shri    Jubin     Prasad,    Government       Advocate      for    the
respondents/State.

Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been made to the order dated 27.08.2021 (Annexure P/1), whereby petitioner, a Medical Officer, has been transferred from Community Health Center, Ghansour to Primary Health Center, Dhuma, Lakhnadon, within the same District on the ground of administrative exigency.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order is in blatant violation of the transfer policy. It issubmitted that transfer has been effected only with the purpose to accommodate the respondent no.4. The petitioner is a class II Gazetted Officer and his appointment authority is the State Govt., therefore, the order impugned passed by the C.M.H.O. is without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from serious gynaecological disorder and also has tumors in her body. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the Apex court judgment in the case of B.Vardha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 1986(4) SCC 131. On these grounds, prays for quashing of the impugned order.

In response, learned State counsel submits that no interference with the order of transfer is warranted. Moreover, the transfer policy is in the nature of guidelines. There is no statutory violation of any rules and no malafide has been pleaded. With the aforesaid, hesubmitted that the petition being devoid of merit and substance deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is substantial force in the submissions advanced by learned Government Advocate. Moreover, it is well settled in law that transfer HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, W.P.No.26198/2021 ( Dr.Virendra Singhmare Vs. State of M.P. and others)

is an incidence of service. Which employee should be postedwhere, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. The Supreme Court recently in the case of Namrata Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others by order dt.06.09.2021 passed in SLP (Civil) No.36717/2017 has held that "it is not for the employee to insist to transfer him/her and/or not to transfer him/her at a particular place. Itis for the employer to transfer an employee considering the requirement. Until and unless the transfer is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. The Supreme Court while dealing with the scope of judicial review in the matter of transfer, held that transfer is an incidence of service and normally should not be interfered with by the Court. If any administrative guidelines recalling transfer of an employee are violated, at best the same confers the right on the employee to approach the higher authorities for redressal of his grievance. [See: Union of India and Others v.S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and others, (2001) 5 SCC 508, Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104, State of U.P. and Others v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 1 SCC 402, R.S. Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Venkata 4 WP. No. 4738/2017 (Braj Kishore Paliwal Vs. State of M.P. and others) Ratnam, (2008) 9 SCC 345 and State of Haryana and Others v. Kashmir Singh and Another, (2010) 13 SCC 306].

In the instant case, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case of mala fide or violation of statutory rules, the twin grounds available for interference. The petitioner has no statutory right to remain posted at any particular place.

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge HS HEMANT SARAF 2022.01.08 17:14:45 +05'30'