Madhya Pradesh High Court
Basant Kumar Rohit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 October, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 27th OF OCTOBER, 2022
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1238 OF 2022
BETWEEN:-
BASANT KUMAR ROHIT S/O SHRI N.L ROHIT,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
COOPERATIVE INSPECTOR R/O SHANTI VIHA
COLONY MIG-127 MAKRONIYA, DISTRICT
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ANIL LALA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH THE SECRETARY CO-
OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY CO-OPERATIVE
DEPARTMENT STATE OF M.P. VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES SAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. JANHAVI PANDIT- DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Vishal Mishra, passed the following:
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition No.21259 of 2022, the writ
petitioner is in appeal.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he is posted as Co-operative
Inspector at Sagar and he has been transferred vide order dated
31.08.2021 from Sagar to Ashok Nagar. Being aggrieved by the same, he
approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.No.19274 of
2021 which was disposed off vide order dated 20.09.2021 directing the
authorities to consider and decide the representation within a period of 30
days, with an interim relief that he be permitted to continue at the present
place of posting, in case he has not already been relieved. Thereafter, as
the respondents/authorities did not comply the order in proper perspective
and after lapse of a period of one year vide order dated 18.08.2022
rejected the representation of the writ petitioner and relieved the
petitioner to join at the transferred place vide order dated 12.09.2022,
another writ petition was filed assailing the orders dated 12.09.2022 and
18.08.2022 as well as the transfer order dated 31.08.2021 which stood
dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal.
3. It is argued that the petitioner was transferred without any
administrative exigency and the petitioner was a victim of frequent
transfers and the representation of the petitioner has been rejected after
lapse a period of one year and the learned Single Judge has not taken into
consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has dismissed the
writ petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has supported
the impugned order and has submitted that the writ petitioner was
transferred in August, 2021 and he has not joined at the transferred place
till date. In pursuance to the direction given by the Writ Court in the
earlier round of litigation, the representation preferred by the writ
petitioner has been considered and rejected by the authorities and,
therefore, the petitioner is duty bound to comply with the transfer order.
Interference in the transfer order can only be made in specific
circumstances as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in large
number of cases. It is a settled proposition of law that in case of violation
of any of the condition of the transfer policy only remedy to an employee
is to prefer a representation, which was already filed and the authorities
have considered and rejected the same. In such circumstances, the writ
petitioner is left with no other option but to join at the transferred place.
He prays for dismissal of the writ appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Undisputed facts being that the earlier transfer order dated
31.08.2021 was subjected to challenge before this Court and this Court
had directed the authorities to consider and decide the representation of
the writ petitioner. The authorities have considered and rejected the
representation of the writ petitioner. The only remedy available to the
writ petitioner is to file a representation in case there is violation of any of
the condition of the transfer policy in view of the law laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Chaudhary Vs. State of
M.P. and others reported in ILR (2007) MP 1329 wherein the Division
Bench 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, 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."
7. The Division Bench of this Court in another case i.e. Mridul
Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. reported in I.L.R (2015) MP 2556
has held as under:-
"Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a
particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to
other is an incident of service. No Government servant or
employee of public undertakings has legal right for being
posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to
other is generally a condition of service and the employee
has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to
other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the
Public Administration. Whenever, a public servant is
transferred he must comply with the order but if there be
any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open
to him to make representation to the competent authority
for stay, modification, or cancellation of the transfer
order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified, or
cancelled the concerned public servant must carry out the
order of transfer. If he fails to proceed on transfer in
compliance to the transfer order, he would expose himself
to disciplinary action under the relevant Rules, as has
happened in the instant case. The respondent lost his
service as he refused to comply with the order of his
transfer from one place to the other."
8. In view of the settled proposition of law, the representation
submitted by the petitioner has already been considered and rejected by
the authorities. In such circumstances, the only remedy available to the
writ petitioner is to comply with the transfer order, failing which, the writ
petitioner shall be inviting disciplinary action against him in view of the
Division Bench judgment in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma (supra).
Interference in the transfer order can only be made in certain specific
circumstances. Legal position on transfer is settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and others Vs. S.L.
Abbas reported in AIR 1993 SC 2444; S.K. Nausad Rahaman and
others Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2022(2) JLJ 147;
Gujrat Electricity Board and another Vs. Atmaram Sungomal
Poshani reported in (1989) 2 SCC 602 and in the case of State of U.P.
and another Vs. Siya Ram and another reported in (2004) 7 SCC 405.
9. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, no relief
can be extended to the writ petitioner. The impugned order passed by the
Writ Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference in the
present appeal.
10. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order
as to costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
SJ
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Date: 2022.11.02 18:49:37 +05'30'
