Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suryabhan Saket ( Head Constable No. 25) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:759
1 WP-32-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 32 of 2025
SURYABHAN SAKET ( HEAD CONSTABLE NO. 25)
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Shri A.S. Thakur - Advocate for
petitioner.
Shri Jubin Prasad - Panel Lawyer for State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 31.12.2024
(Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner has
been transferred from District Singrauli to District Sidhi.
2. Apart from the several grounds raised in the writ petition, learned
Senior counsel has pointed out that the transfer of the petitioner has been
made in the mid session and the daughter of the petitioner is a student of
Class-VIII, she has to appear in the Board examination scheduled in the
month of February-March, 2025. He has produced the certificate from the
concerning school dated 08.01.2025 to demonstrate that Class-VIII is a
Board in D.A.V. Institutions. The relevant certificate reads as under:-
"This is to certify that Miss. Surya D/o Suryabhan Saket is a
bonafied student of this school and studying in VIII-A. Class VIII
is Board in DAV Instutitions. Her admission no is 32/14 as per
admission register.
The above detail is true to be best of my knowledge."
3. The aforesaid aspect was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:759
2 WP-32-2025
Director of School Education Madras and Others VS. O. Karuppa Thevan
and Another reported in 1994 Supp.(2) Supreme Court Case 666; wherein,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"The tribunal has erred in law in holding that the respondent
employee ought to have been heard before transfer. No law
requires an employee to be heard before his transfer when the
authorities make the transfer for the exigencies of administration.
However, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that
in view of the fact that respondent's children are studying in
school, the transfer should not have been effected during mid-
academic term. Although there is no such rule, we are of the view
that in effecting transfer, the fact that the children of an employee
are studying should be given due weight, if the exigencies of the
service are not urgent. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant was unable to point out that there was such urgency in
the present case that the employee could not have been
accommodated till the end of the current academic year. We,
therefore, while setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal,
direct that the appellant should not effect the transfer till the end of
the current academic year. The appeal is allowed accordingly with
no order as to costs."
4. Petitioner's counsel submits that till the board examinations are over a
protection may be granted to the petitioner. He will also prefer a
representation to the authorities raising all the grievances against the transfer
order.
5. Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the
contentions, however, the facts remains that he could not dispute the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. He
further could not dispute the certificate issued by the Dayanand Anglo Vedic
College, dated 08.01.2025 wherein it is mentioned that Class-VIII is a Board
in the DAV Institutions.
6. Under these circumstances, this petition is disposed off directing the
petitioner to prefer a detailed representation to the respondent No.2 within a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:759
3 WP-32-2025
period of ten days from today and in case such representation is preferred,
the respondent No.2 is directed to dwell upon the same and pass a self
contained speaking order and communicate the outcome to the petitioner
within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
7. Till the representation is decided the petitioner may be permitted to
work at District Singrauli.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
THK
