Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd. Ayub Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 131 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
MOHD. AYUB KHAN S/O LATE YUSUF KHAN, AGED
ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SUPERINTENDENT
ENGINEER(OANDM) R/O M.P.P.K.V.V.C. LTD. MANDLA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI D.K.TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ENERGY DEPARTMENT
R/O VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. M .P.P.K.V.V.C.L. THROUGH ITS MANAGING
D IR ECTOR EAST ZONE BLOCK NO.7 SHAKTI
BHAWAN RAMPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER ( HR AND A)
M.P.P.K.V.V.C.L. B LOCK NO.7 SHAKTI BHAWAN
RAMPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. S HR IR AM PAN D EY S.E. ( O AND M) KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PIYUSH JAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1/STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/13/2024
6:09:17 PM
2
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
dismissing Writ Petition No.25656 of 2023, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was working on the post of
Superintendent Engineer. He was transferred from Jabalpur to Sagar. The said
order was duly executed by the writ petitioner by giving his joining at Sagar.
Thereafter again within a period of one and half months on his own request, he
was transferred from Sagar to Katni vide order dated 30.09.2022. The said
order was duly executed by the writ petitioner by giving joining at Katni. Vide
order dated 10.08.2023 the writ petitioner was again transferred from Katni to
Mandla. The transfer order has been passed without any administrative
exigency. The representation was considered by the authorities and rejected.
Against the said order, the writ petition was filed, which was also dismissed.
Hence, this appeal.
3. Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has argued that in the earlier
round of litigation, the writ petition was disposed off with a direction to
consider and decide the representation of the petitioner and till then no coercive
action be taken against him but to get his representation considered by the
authorities he had to join at the transferred place of posting in view of the
Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma
Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556. The fact
remains that in the earlier round of litigation the learned Writ Court has granted
the relief of filing a representation to the authorities to be decided in a particular
time in Writ Petition No.20608 of 2023 vide order dated 22.08.2023 wherein it
was observed that "for a period of fifteen days or till the said representation is
decided whichever is earlier, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner,
if he has not already joined at the transferred place." Thus, the petitioner was
already granted an interim protection by the learned writ court but despite of the
same, the writ petitioner has chosen to execute the transfer order and join at the
transferred place of posting. Once the writ petitioner has chosen to join at the
transferred place of posting no relief can be extended to the writ petitioner.
4. The law with respect to transfers is well settled in large number of cases by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and Ors Vs. S.L.
Abbas reported in AIR 1993 SC 2444, S.K. Nausad Rahaman and others
Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2022 (2) JLJ 147; Gujrat
Electricity Board and another Vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani reported
in (1989) 2 SCC 602 and in the case of State of U.P. and another Vs. Siya
Ram and another reported in (2004) 7 SCC 405 and also by the Division
Bench of this Court in the cases of R.S. Chaudhary and others v. State of
M.P. and others reported in ILR (2007) MP 1329 and Mridul Kumar
Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556.
Transfer being one of the conditions of service can only be interfered in
exceptional circumstances i.e., if the same is an outcome of mala fides or an
outcome of colourable exercise of power on the part of the authorities or
changing the service conditions of the employee.
5. Under these circumstances, when the impugned order is tested on the anvil
o f the above facts, we do not perceive any error therein. No illegality is
committed by the learned writ court in dismissing the writ petition preferred by
the writ petitioner.
6. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
AM
