Vikramsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 11405 MP

                                      -1-


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    AT I N D O R E
                             BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                       ON THE 21st OF JULY, 2023


                   WRIT PETITION No. 16559 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
VIKRAMSINGH S/O SHRI NANSINGH KATARA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: GOVT. SERVICE R/O AMARGARH ROAD BAMNIYA
TEHSIL PETLAWAD DISTT. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                          .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI OM PRAKASH SOLANKI, ADVOCATE)

AND
     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL                      SECRETARY
1.
     VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
     COMMISSIONER TRIBAL WELFARE AFFAIRS,                  M.P.    SATPURA
2.
     BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
     ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TRIBAL WORK DEPARTMENT JHABUA
3.
     DIST. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI KRATIK MANDLOI, PANEL LAWYER)
          This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
                                 ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2023, whereby he has been transferred from Government Boys Primary School, Bamniya to Government Primary School, Dotad on

administrative ground.

02. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in Tribal Department. He is assailing the transfer order on the ground that his aged mother and father are dependent on him. Till date, no one has been posted in his place in Government Boys School, Bamniya, hence, he is required in this school. The distance between two places is 90 km.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been engaged in election duties as B.L.O., therefore, he is not liable to be transferred.

04. The impugned order is not liable to be interfered with on the grounds raised by the petitioner. So far the appointment of petitioner as B.L.O. is concerned, no such document has been filed along with this petition. The job of B.L.O. is to prepare voter lists which is an ongoing process and on the transferred place also he can be engaged as B.L.O. Even otherwise, there is no violation of any clause of the transfer policy, therefore, only on the ground of personal inconvenience, the transfer order is not liable to be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

05. In view of (2004) 12 SCC 390 (Medley Minerals India Limited v/s State of Orissa & Others), (1995) 2 SCC 57 (State of Punjab & Others v/s Chaman Lal Goyal), (2015) 1 SCC 642 (Rajendra Kumar Agrawal v/s State of Uttar Pradesh & Others), (2020) 3 SCC 86 (Rajneesh Khajuria v/s Wockhardy Limited & Another) and judgment of this Court in 2011 (3) M.P.H.T. 479 (Bhagwat Singh Verma v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others), the allegations of malafide cannot

be entertained.

06. The transfer order can be interfered with if it violates any statutory provision (not policy guideline), proved to be malafide, passed by incompetent authority or changes service conditions of an employee to his detriment. No such ingredients are available in the petition.

07. In view of the above, Writ Petition stands dismissed.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Ravi Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH Date: 2023.07.25 18:11:56 +05'30'