Vishwanath Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 17681 MP

                            1             W.P. No. 26973/2023


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
              ON THE 25th OF OCTOBER, 2023
              WRIT PETITION No. 26973 of 2023
BETWEEN:-

VISHWANATH VERMA S/O SHRI BUDDHI KOL,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
WORKING    AS   ACCOUNTANT     GOVT.
EXCELLENCE HIGHERSECONDARY SCHOOL
NAIGARHI DISTRICT MAUGANJ (MADHYA
PRADESH)



                                            .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH- ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      PRINCIPAL   SECRETARY     SCHOOL
      EDUCATION             DEPATMENT
      MANTRALAYA,   VALLABH    BHAWAN,
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)



2.    COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
      M.P. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)



3.    DISTRICT    EDUCATION    OFFICER,
      DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)



4.    SANKUL      PRINCIPAL       GOVT.
      EXCELLENCE   HIGHER    SECONDARY
      SCHOOL NAIGARHI DISTRICT MAUGANJ
      (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                 2                            W.P. No. 26973/2023


                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI NAVEEN DUBEY- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         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 the following reliefs:-

"i) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to set-aside the impugned order dated 10.8.23 (Anx.P/1) and to continue the service of the petitioner in his present posting place, in the interest of justice.

ii) To grant any other relief which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that by order dated 10.08.2023, the petitioner has been transferred from Government Excellence Higher Secondary School, Naigarhi to Government Higher Secondary School Boys Chakghat, District Rewa. Before the transfer order, Mauganj has been constituted as District. The seniority of the petitioner is maintained at District level and the transfer of the petitioner from District Mauganj to District Rewa will adversely affect his seniority. The Principal of Government Excellence Higher Secondary School, Naigarhi, District Mauganj has also recommended for cancellation of the transfer order of petitioner. It is further submitted that no one has been transferred in place of petitioner. The petitioner has made a representation against his transfer order which has not been decided so far. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been

assigned election duty and transfer of the petitioner without the concurrence of the Election Commission is bad-in-law.

3. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for respondent/State. It is submitted that the transfer is an exigency of service and no one can claim that he/she should be posted at a particular place.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. So far as the assignment of election duty is concerned, it is directed that in case if the petitioner makes a representation to the election commission for stay of his relieving, then the same shall be considered by the Election Commission and if required, the Election Commission shall issue necessary instructions to the respondents not to relieve the petitioner till the election duties are completed.

6. However, it is made clear that in case if such a direction is issued, then the petitioner shall be relieved immediately after election duties are over.

7. Counsel for the petitioner could not point out the period of stay of the petitioner at the present place of posting. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner must have spent a considerable long time at the present place of posting.

8. So far as the submission with regard to adverse affect on the seniority of the petitioner is concerned, it is sufficient to clarify that the petitioner in his representation has not raised such an objection. Furthermore, no such ground has been raised by the petitioner in the writ petition.

9. So far as the transfer of the petitioner to a place which is 85 km away from the present place of posting is concerned, it is suffice to mention here that the same cannot be a ground to quash the transfer

order. Transfer is an exigency of service and no one can claim that he/she should be posted at a particular place. No malafides have been alleged by the petitioner and no one has been impleaded as a party in their personal capacity. No violation of any statutory provision of law has been alleged.

10. At this stage, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has made a representation and the respondents may be directed to decide the same.

11. Considered the submission made by counsel for petitioner.

12. In case if the Election Commission directs the respondents not to relieve the petitioner till the election duty is over, then it is directed that in light of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR 2015 MP 2556 the respondents shall consider the representation of the petitioner only after he joins at his transfer place and not prior thereto.

13. The Supreme Court in the case of Kalabharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 437 has held as under:-

"22. It is a settled legal proposition that the forum of the writ court cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and the final relief to any litigant. If the court comes to the conclusion that the matter requires adjudication by some other appropriate forum and relegates the said party to that forum, it should not grant any interim relief in favour of such a litigant for an interregnum period till the said party approaches the alternative forum and obtains interim relief. (Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024 : AIR 1952 SC 12], Amarsarjit Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1962 SC 1305] , State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev [AIR 1964 SC 685], State of Bihar v. Rambalak Singh

"Balak" [AIR 1966 SC 1441 : 1966 Cri LJ 1076] and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke [(1976) 1 SCC 496 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 70 : AIR 1975 SC 2238])"

14. With aforesaid observations, petition is dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE ashish ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE 2023.10.27 14:38:54 +05'30'