Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramakant Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 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 17 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 71 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAMAKANT MISHRA S/O SHRI RAMSUMIRAN, AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVERNMENT
TEACHER R/O VILLAGE AND POST GORSARI KHURD
T E H S I L R AM N AGAR DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. ANURADHA MUTATKAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
SCHOOL VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER SATNA DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.S. CHAUHAN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
dismissing Writ Petition No.24601 of 2023, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he is working as Primary Teacher
and vide order dated 10.08.2023, he was transferred from Government Middle
School, Dighiya Khurd, Satna to Government Middle School, Kurehi, Satna
against which, he preferred a writ petition being W.P.No.21483 of 2023 and this
Court vide order dated 01.09.2023 directed the respondents to take a decision
on the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.09.2023
the representation of the petitioner was rejected, against which the instant writ
petition was filed. It is his case that the petitioner who is having responsibility of
his father aged about 76 years has been transferred to a distance of 271 km. He
is holding the post of treasurer of the M.P. Shikshak Congress at block level
and, therefore, his transfer is contrary to the transfer policy. That without taking
into consideration the aforesaid aspects, he has been transferred. It is pointed
out that the learned writ court has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the
matter and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal has been filed.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned
order opposing the contentions raised by the writ petitioner. It is submitted that
the transfer is an incidence of service and the writ petitioner is required to join
his duties at the transferred place of posting. Transfer order cannot be
interfered in a casual manner and the employee is duty bound to comply with
the transfer order. It is submitted that no one can claim that he or she should be
posted at a particular place. The petitioner has been transferred to a place where
no teacher is available in view of the administrative exigency. He has placed
reliance upon several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support his
arguments. Hence, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.
4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. From a perusal of the record, it is seen that the writ petitioner has been
transferred from Government Middle School, Dighiya Khurd, Satna to
Government Middle School, Kurehi, Satna vide order dated 10.08.2023 on the
ground that no teacher is available at the transferred place.
6. Interference in cases of transfer can only be made in exceptional
circumstances i.e. the transfer order being an outcome of malafides or
colourable exercise of power on the part of the authorities or changing the
service conditions etc., but the same cannot be interfered on personal
inconveniences that could be pointed out by the writ petitioner. The aforesaid
aspect was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh
Tiwari vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592 wherein it
is held as under:-
"16. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order.
There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is
ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in
cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved.
Mala fide is of two kinds - one malice in fact and the second malice in
law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law
as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of
transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations
made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one
thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer
in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the
order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When
an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable
to be set aside being wholly illegal."
7. The law with respect to transfer 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; Gujarat 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 Vs. 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.
8. That apart, passing of the order of transfer is the exclusive domain of the
administration. It has its exigencies and necessities. This could be understood
and appreciated by the authority who considers the entire situation. The Court
is not supposed to put-forth assessment of its views in the matter of
administration. Neither the Court could question the sufficiency or justifiability
of the decision. The administration must have its own playing joints. The
administration should be allowed to run smoothly. The Court is not supposed
to interfere with the administration particularly with regard to transfers, which
are not outcome of mala fide, biasness or vindictiveness. Since the petitioner
was on a transferable post, in our considered opinion, the learned writ court has
rightly dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner is an office bearer of district
level and he is transferred within the same district. The administrative exigency
and job requirements of the department must be given preference over
association activities. Interference by the courts with transfer orders should be
in rare cases. The learned writ court has rightly considered all the aspects of the
case and has passed the impugned order. There is no illegality in the order
passed by the learned writ court.
9. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
sj
