Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manohar Lal vs School Education Department on 11 July, 2022
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 15582 of 2022
Between:-
MANOHAR LAL S/O SHRI BANSILAL SONI ,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE UCCH MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK
GOVERNMENT HIGH SECONDARY SCHOOL
KANGHATI TEHSIL MALHARGARH DISTRICT
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHOBHAG MAL PORWAL-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THROUGH
DEPUTY SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER EDUCATION
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRADYUMNA KIBE-ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT/STATE)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This is second visit of the petitioner before this Court.
In the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity
of the order dated 16.6.2022 whereby the representation of the petitioner against
the transfer order has been rejected.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHA
R KOUSHAL
Date: 2022.07.12
Earlier the petitioner had challenged the transfer order dated 24.01.2022
10:26:40 IST
by which the petitioner had been transferred from Govt.Higher Secondary
School, Kanghati, Tahsil Malhargarh to Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School,
Bhisoda, Tahsil Bhanpura which is 200 kms. away from the present place of
posting.
The petitioner before this Court submitted that the transfer order has
been issued in mid session and his children are studying. This Court disposed
of the earlier writ petition i.e. W.P. No. 3327/2022 by order dated 9.2.2022
directing the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the representation of the
petitioner within a period of two months. By the impugned order, the
respondent No.1 has rejected the representation of the petitioner.
Admittedly the petitioner is posted at present place of posting for last
more than three years. Petitioner has been transferred within the district and
further, the authority has mentioned that facility at the transferred place are
available better.
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
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
Ram and another (2004) 7 SCC 405 ruled that an employee should be posted
SAN MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHA
where it has to be decided by the employer and an employee has no right to
R KOUSHAL
Date: 2022.07.12
10:26:40 IST
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 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.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHA
In view of aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.
R KOUSHAL
Date: 2022.07.12
10:26:40 IST
Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHA
R KOUSHAL
Date: 2022.07.12
10:26:40 IST
