Tejlal Uikey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 17083 MP

                                                                1                                       W.P. No.26169/2023


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                           BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                 ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                 WRIT PETITION No. 26169 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
TEJLAL UIKEY S/O SHRI CHANDARESEE UIKEY,
AGED    ABOUT    52  YEARS,  OCCUPATION:
FORESTER PENCH TIGER RESERVE SEONIR/O
ENTRY GATE TURIA PENCH TIGER RESERVE
DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                            .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANSHUMAN SINGH - ADVOCATE THROUGH VEDIO
CONFERENCING WITH SHRI ANUJ SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE )

AND
1.       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROGH
         ITS  ADDITIONAL  CHIEF    SECRETARY,
         DEPARTMENT    OF  FOREST,   VALLABH
         BHAWAN, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
         PRADESH)

2.       ADDITIONAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
         FOREST   VALLABH   BHAWAN   BHOPAL
         (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.       FIELD DIRECTOR PENCH TIGER RESERVE
         OFFICE OF FIELD DIRECTOR PENCH TIGER
         RESERVE    NEAR   OLD   RTO   OFFICE
         BARAPATTHER DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA
         PRADESH)

4.       SHRI RAMGOPAL JAISWAL EX ZILA
         PANCHAYAT      MEMBER     PRESENTLY
         PRESIDENT   PICHDA  WARG    MANDAL
         BHARTIYA JANTA PARTY R/O GRAM TURIA
         POLICE STATION KURIA DISTRICT SEONI
         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI NAVEEN DUBEY - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
NO.1 TO 3/STATE )
............................................................................................................................................
                                    2                     W.P. No.26169/2023


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

This Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:

(i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus setting aside the impugned order dated 03.10.2023 to the extent it transfers the petitioner to Satupura Tiger Reserve, which is produced as Annexure P7;

(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to continue as Forester, Karmajhiri Range, Pench Tiger Reserve District Seoni, M.P.;

(iii) Grant any other relief that this Honourable Court deems fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. By impugned order dated 03.10.2023, petitioner who is working on the post of Forester has been transferred from Pench Tiger Reserve, Seoni to Satpura Tiger Reserve, Narmapuram. Petitioner has challenged this transfer order on two grounds, namely; (i) seniority of Forester is maintained at circle level and petitioner has been transferred out of circle, (ii) transfer order of petitioner suffers from malafides. To buttress his contention, counsel for petitioner has relied upon order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pramod Shrivastava Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others decided on 17th March 2023 in W.P. No.4616/2023 and order passed Division Bench of this Court in the case of N.K. Dubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others in decided on 07.01.2010 in W.P. No.4029/2007.

3. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for State. It is submitted that so far as maintenance of seniority at circle level is concerned, the question in hand is squarely covered by judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Phool Sahay Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 10.08.2021 in W.A. No.716/2021 (Gwalior Bench) and a similar view has been taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Parmod Katare Vs. State of M.P. and others decided on 05.04.2022 in W.P. No.7454/2022 and connected matters (Gwalior Bench), wherein it has been held that since seniority of Forest Guard is maintained at district level therefore, even if any Forest Guard is transferred beyond the district on administrative convenience, for which respondents are very well authorized to do so, then in that condition, question of maintaining seniority or losing it assumes importance and accordingly, it was directed the even if a Forest Guard is transferred to another district, still his seniority shall be maintained in parent district.

4. Heard the learned counsel for parties.

(i) Seniority List at Circle Level

5. It is the case of petitioner that seniority list of Forester is maintained at circle level and in case if he is transferred to a different circle, then his seniority would be adversely affected. In the light of judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Phool Sahaya (supra) and order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pramod Katare (supra), it is clear that even if a Forester is transferred out of circle, his seniority is to be maintained in his parent circle. Therefore, it is clear that after petitioner is transferred to different circle his seniority will not get adversely affected and his seniority will be maintained in his original/parent circle.

(ii) Malafides

6. So far as malafides are concerned, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that respondent No.4, who was Ex-Jila Panchayat Member and presently President of Pichhda Varg Mandal, Bhartiya Janta Party has written to respondents to transfer petitioner and accordingly, petitioner has been transferred, therefore not only the order under challenge suffers from malafides but it has been issued without any administrative exigency.

7. Considered the submissions.

8. Counsel for petitioner has filed a copy of certain representations made by representative of public to the effect that there are certain complaints against petitioner with regard to his misbehavior with tourists as well as wild lives.

9. The Supreme Court in the case Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and other reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150 has held that a transfer order cannot be quashed merely on the ground that it was made on the recommendation of representative of public. In the representations, which have been filed by petitioner, the complaints were that petitioner is in habit of misbehaving with tourists as well as the wild lives. If respondents have acted on such representations/recommendation, then it cannot be said that transfer of petitioner is a product of malafide action.

10. So far as judgment relied upon by counsel for petitioner passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pramod Shrivastava (supra) is concerned, it is suffice to mention here that said judgment was passed on 17th of March, 2023 and it has not taken note of order passed a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pramod Katare (supra) and judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Phool Sahay (supra). Therefore, it can be safely said that order

passed in the case of Pramod Shrivastava is per incuriam and is not binding on this Court.

11. No other argument is advanced by counsel for petitioner.

12. Since transfer is an exigency of service and transfer of petitioner to a different circle will not adversely affect his seniority because seniority is to be maintained in his original circle, accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference.

13. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Shanu

Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2023.10.13 17:12:59 +05'30'