Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhawani Shankar Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 October, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 18th OF OCTOBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 23048 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
BHAWANI SHANKAR VERMA S/O SHRI MADAN
LALVERMA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SUB ENGINEER R/O JANPAD
PANCHAYAT BAKSHWAHA, DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DEEPAK SAHU - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
D E PA R T M E N T THROUGH ITS UNDER
S ECR ETARY BALLABH BHAWAN DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RURAL ENGINEERING SERVICE DEPARTMENT
THROUGH ITS CHIEF ENGINEER BHOPAL
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. RURAL ENGINEERING SERVICE DEPARTMENT
THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CHATTARPUR DIVISION CHATTARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. C O L L E C T O R C H A T T A R P U R DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. THE ZILA PANCHAYAT CHATTARPUR
THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 10/18/2022
6:40:04 PM
2
(BY SHRI PRAMOD PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Challenge being made to the transfer order dated 05.10.2022 (Annexure
P-7) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby, the petitioner has been
transferred from Rural Engineering Services Division Chattarpur to Rural
Engineering Services Division Jhabua.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
has been subjected to frequent transfers. The petitioner was appointed on
17.2.2003 as Assistant Engineer in Rural Engineering Services Department
which comes under Panchayat and Rural Development Department. Since then
he was subjected to transfer at various places. It is argued that, lastly he was
subjected to transfer on 18.8.2021 from Division Chattarpur to Janpad
Panchayat Bakshwaha, District Chattarpur and within a short period of one year
he has been again transferred to Division Jhabua. It is submitted that children of
the petitioner are studying at present place of posting. It is also submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order is in violation of Clause
6 of the transfer policy. It is further submitted that the petitioner has frequently
transferred has submitted a representation to the respondents/Authorities but the
same has not been considered and decided till date.
P er contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and
submitted that the transfer is a condition of service and the said transfer is on
administrative grounds. Personal inconvenience cannot be a ground for
quashment of the transfer order. It is further submitted that as far as other
ground regarding representation is concerned, the same will be dealt with by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 10/18/2022
6:40:04 PM
Authorities and decided expeditiously. He has placed reliance in the Division
Bench judgment of this Court in the case of R.S. Chaudhary and Others v.
State of M.P. and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329 and in the case of Union
of India and ors. vs. SL Abbas as reported in AIR 1993 SC 2444..
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
O n perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner vide order
impugned dated 05.10.2022 has been transferred from Rural Engineering
Services Division Chattarpur to Rural Engineering Services Division Jhabua, but
the fact remains that the petitioner is already working at the present place of
posting for a considerable period. Personal inconvenience pointed out by the
counsel for the petitioner cannot be a ground for assailing the transfer order. As
far as competence of the authorities are concerned, the transfer order has been
passed by the State Government, therefore, no question of competence of the
authority arises in the matter. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the
petitioner has been frequently transferred and there is violation of Clause 6 of
transfer policy.
The law with respect to transfer is concerned, is well settled in the case
of R.S. Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, ILR (2007)
MP 1329 and in the case of Union of India and ors. vs. SL Abbas as
reported in AIR 1993 SC 2444.
In the case of R.S. Chaudhary (supra) the Division Bench of this Court
has held as under :-
"Transfer Policy formulated by State is not
enforceable as employee does not have a right and
courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere in the
order of transfer. Court can interfere in case of
mandatory statutory rule or action is capricious,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 10/18/2022
6:40:04 PM
malicious, cavalier and fanciful. In case of
violation of policy, proper remedy is to approach
authorities by pointing out violation and
authorities to deal with the same keeping in mind
the policy guidelines."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors
v. S.L. Abbas reported in AIR 1993 SC 2444, has held as under:-
"An order of transfer is an incident of Government
Service. Fundamental Rule 11 says that "the whole
time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the
Government which pays him and he may be employed
i n any manner required by proper authority".
Fundamental Rule 15 says that "the President may
transfer a government servant from one post to
another". That the respondent is liable to transfer
anywhere in India is not in dispute. It is not the case of
the respondent that order of his transfer is vitiated by
mala fides on the part of the authority making the
order,- though the Tribunal does say so merely because
certain guidelines issued by the Central Government are
not followed, with which finding we shall deal later.
The respondent attributed "mischief" to his immediate
superior who had nothing to do with his transfer. All
he says is that he should not be transferred because his
wife is working at Shillong, his children are studying
there and also because his health had suffered a set-
back some time ago. He relies upon certain executive
instructions issued by the Government in that behalf.
Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They
do not have statutory force."
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact
t h a t the petitioner has already preferred a representation to the
respondent/authorities; therefore, without entering into the controversy of the
matter, this Court by placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 10/18/2022
6:40:04 PM
Bench of this Court in the case of R.S. Choudhary (supra), deems it
appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, with a direction to the petitioner to
submit a detailed representation to the authorities/respondent No.2 within a
period of seven days and in turn the authorities/respondent No.2 is directed to
dwell upon the representation and pass a self contained speaking order within a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and
communicate the outcome to the petitioner.
Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
irfan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 10/18/2022
6:40:04 PM
