Rajendra Rao Yewle vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5608 MP

1


 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT IN DORE
                           BEFORE
               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                    ON THE 6th OF APRIL, 2023
                 WRIT PETITION No. 7893 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAJENDRA RAO YEWLE S/O YADAV RAO, AGED ABOUT 56
YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT GRADE III, R/O MAIN
ROAD, BERCHHA MANDI, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                        .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI YASH NAGAR-ADVOCATE)
AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL
      SECRETARY    SCHOOL   EDUCATION  DEPARTMENT
      DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    COMMISSIONER    DIRECTORATE    OF              PUBLIC
      INSTRUCTIONS BHOPAL, DIST. BHOPAL            (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    UP SANCHALAK LOK SHIKSHAN VALLABH BHAWAN,
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER          SHAJAPUR,     DIST.
      SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    SANKUL    PRACHARYA GOVERNMENT    HIGHER
      SECONDARY SCHOOL BERCHHA, DIST. SHAJAPUR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI KUSHAL GOYAL- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE).
       This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the

following:

                                ORDER

Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2022 whereby he has been transferred from Government Higher Secondary School Bercha Block Shajapur, District Shajapur to Government High School Dudhana, Distict Shajapur on administrative ground and order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the respondent whereby representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Commissioner Public Instruction and also order dated 24.02.2023 by which he has been directed to relieve.

[2] The petitioner has assailed the transfer order inter alia on the ground that he is working to the post of Assistant Grade-III and he has been transferred to the school where there is no such sanctioned post of Assistant Grade-III. Secondly, the petitioner is suffering from cancer as per city scan report dated 02.03.2023, therefore, he has wrongly been transferred from one place to another place contrary to transfer policy. Lastly, he is holding the post of office bearer of recognized union, therefore, having immunity from his transfer.

[3] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Commissioner Public Instruction has rejected the representation of the petitioner in mechanical manner without considering the aforesaid grounds. Petitioner did not receive the date of hearing i.e. 27.01.2023 in advance, thus he could not be presented his case on 27.01.2023.

[4] So far as suffering from cancer is concerned, the petitioner is taking treatment from the doctor at Ujjain, therefore, he can take treatment from the transfer place also. Secondly, so far as immunity of transfer by virtue of holding the post of Secretary of M.P. Lipikvargiya Shaskiya Karmchari Sangh, District Shajapur is concerned, petitioner is

secretary of district Shajapur and he has been transferred within the district, therefore he can work as office bearer from the transfered place. The petitioner has not disclosed in entire petition about the period of posting at present place of posting, thus it appears that he has managed to continue his posting at present place since last so many years, therefore, he has suppressed the period of posting.

[5] Law relating to the 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 Ram and another (2004) 7 SCC 405 ruled that an employee should be posted where it has to be decided by the employer and an employee has no right to 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

In view of above observation and judgments, no case is made out to interfere in the impugned order. Hence, Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE praveen

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN Date: 2023.04.11 18:16:39 +05'30'