Kishore Singh Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14329 MP

                                                           1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                                   JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                              ON THE 31 st OF AUGUST, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 21640 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          KISHORE SINGH PARMAR S/O LATE SHRI BANKE
                          SINGH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          PRIMARY TEACHER PRESENTLY POSTED AT GOVT.
                          PRIMARY SCHOOL, PATAURI SANKUL HATA, DISTT.
                          TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI DEEPAK AWASTHI - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
                                SCHOOL   EDUCATION   VALLABH   BHAWAN
                                BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    THE    DISTRICT   EDUCATION    OFFICER,
                                TIKAMGARH HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
                                DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    RAHUL SINGH LODHI, MEMBER MEMBER OF
                                LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY KHARGAPUR, DISTRICT
                                TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI ANKIT AGRAWAL - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                            ORDER

Heard on admission.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by transfer order dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure P-1) whereby petitioner is transferred from Patori, Tikamgarh to Khrgoopura, Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 9/1/2023 5:27:04 PM

Tikamgarh.

3. Shri Deepak Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order is malafide in nature. The petitioner was suspended by order dated 24.06.2022 (Annexure P-2) but department did not find any evidence against him and therefore, revoked his suspension and dropped his inquiry by order dated 19.12.2022 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter for political reasons under the pressure of respondent No.3, a local M.L.A. petitioner was transferred. Petitioner's brother is also a Govt. employee and is transferred because of same pressure. Petitioner has already preferred representation against transfer order which is pending consideration.

4. Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned G.A. for the State opposed the prayer and produced the original transfer file for perusal of this Court.

5. It is seen that more than 100 employees' names were recommended for transfer and said list includes the name of present petitioner as well. There is nothing in the transfer file which suggests that petitioner has been picked up and chosen for transfer because of any political rivalry or extraneous pressure. Even otherwise, as per the judgment of Supreme Court in (2007) 8 SCC 150 (Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) , a public representative can recommend transfer of an employee in public interest. In nutshell, there is no iota of material to establish nexus between the impugned transfer order of petitioner with any political motive or action. Transfer is an incident of service.

6 . The transfer order can be interfered with if it runs contrary to any statutory provision (not policy guidelines), proved to be malafide, passed by incompetent authority or changes the service condition to the detriment of the employee. Personal inconvenience cannot be a ground to interfere in the administrative order. No such ground is available in the petition. Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 9/1/2023 5:27:04 PM

7. In view of aforesaid, interference in transfer order is declined. The pending representation of petitioner be considered and decided within three weeks in accordance with law. Petition stands disposed of.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE sarathe

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 9/1/2023 5:27:04 PM