Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Mayank Dhengula vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION NO. 4525 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
DR. MAYANK DHENGULA, IN CHARGE
PRINCIPAL GOVT. SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE
DATIA DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI O.P. SAXENA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (SCHOOL EDUCATION)
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIVEK KHEDKAR - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
1. The instant petition is preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India being crestfallen by order dated 02-02-2024
(Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner
has been transferred from Govt. Higher Secondary School
Excellence, Datia to Govt. Higher Secondary School Adarsh
Kisan Bhalka District Datia.
2. Petitioner is working as In-charge Principal of Govt. School of
Excellence, Datia. He is a Valuation Officer and at present
undertaking valuation of different answer-sheets of students of
different classes and is meritorious teacher and has acquired Ph.D.
in Sanskrit. In his place, no other person has been posted but just
to harass him at the fag end of his career, he has been transferred.
His date of retirement is 30-07-2024 which is reflected from the
documents by way of order dated 04-01-2024 passed by the
District Education Officer, District Datia vide Annexure P/12.
Since petitioner is going to retire within five months, therefore, he
has to complete all the formalities in relation to his retirement.
Thus, prayed for quashing of impugned order Annexure P/1.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the
submission on the ground that transfer is incident of service.
Thus, prayed for dismissal of writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
5. This is a case where petitioner is seeking indulgence on the basis
of his upcoming retirement in July, 2024. Petitioner is involved in
different education related activities and is a teacher of English in
Higher Secondary School and conferred National Award earlier.
He is Ph.D. in Sanskrit and M.A. (Education). He is due to retire
on 30-07-2024 which is only five months away from the present
time.
6. It is also true that Clause 22 of the Transfer Policy stipulates that
those officer/employees who are to be superannuated within one
year usually, would not be subjected to transfer in normal course,
meaning thereby under normal circumstances or usual course,
they may retire from the place where they are working if they
have one year to retire. In the present case, almost five months are
left for petitioner to retire. What was the dire administrative need
which compelled the respondents/State to transfer an employee
when 5 months are left for petitioner to retire. Such an attempt
rendered the case of respondents doubtful. If petitioner was not
performing the duties properly then other options were available
including some stringent measures but if at the fag end of his
tenure, employee sent on transfer then it is difficult for him to
collect the pension papers and make preparation of Pension
Payment Orders. Besides that, at the fag end of his career, he has
to take care of his retirement, coupled with the other family issues
to resolve. As a model employer, it is the duty of the State to look
into the said exigencies.
7. What public purpose would be served, if petitioner is posted at
different place for 5 months because that time would be
consumed by him for getting acclimatized with the new
surroundings and would lose interest in performance of public
duties effectively. On this count, it appears that attempt of
respondents is contrary to principle of public policy as discussed
in judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Inland
Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another Vs. Brojo
Nath Ganguly and Another, 1986 (3) SCC 156. The said aspect
has been reiterated in the case of Ram Bharose Sharma Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors., 2021 (4) MPLJ 90.
8. In the considered view of this Court, when petitioner is left with
such little time to retire then insistence of the respondents/State to
transfer the employee appears to be misplaced against public
policy, guidelines by way of transfer policy and tainted with
trappings of extraneous consideration because no ground has
been referred for transfer except administrative reasons which
ought be based upon some sound purpose and thoughtfulness.
9. Considering the submissions and the fact situation where no other
person has been posted in place of petitioner and petitioner has to
wind up his establishment before proceeding for retirement,
therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, case is made
out for interference. Resultantly, the petition stands allowed and
the order dated 02-02-2024 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby
set aside. Petitioner is permitted to work at his present place of
posting till his retirement, if any, administrative exigency does
not arise otherwise.
10. Petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK)
Anil* JUDGE
ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
2024.02.26
19:22:20 +05'30'
