Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 100 (MP)

Amresh Chand Pandey v. State of M. P.

2007-01-23

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2007
ORDER 1. This petitioner is working on the post of Lecturer in the School Education Department of State of M.P. He has been transferred from the post of Principal, Government High School, Rampur, Jabalpur to the post of Principal Government High School, Mohas, Bargi, Jabalpur vide order dated 26.8.2006 (Annexure P-8). After one month on 26.9.2006 (Annexure P-7) the third respondent Smt. Anjali Kaurwar who was working as Incharge Principal at Government High School Mohas, Bargi, Jabalpur has been transferred as Incharge Principal Government High School, Rampur, Jabalpur where the petitioner was posted. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid orders the petitioner has filed this petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner contends that he has been transferred in the ban period to accommodate the third respondent who has been transferred at his place on her own request. He submits that the petitioner being senior lecturer is entitled to hold the post of Principal and the posting of the third respondent is contrary to the circular of the State Government providing that the Principal of the High Court shall be lecturer of senior scale. 4. The respondents contend that the petitioner was posted on 4.7.2001 at Government High School, Rampur, Jabalpur. After more than 5 years he has been transferred to Mohas, Bargi which is only 19 k.ms. away from his present place of posting that too in the same capacity. In the circumstances they contend that the petitioner who has been transferred on the same capacity after 5 years to a nearby place cannot claim his retention to the same place. According to them the third respondent has not been posted as permanent Principal but she has been posted as Incharge Principal. It is stated that it is always open for the administration to consider the requests of its employees, accordingly the third respondent's request pursuant to the petitioner's transfer was considered and she has been posted as Incharge Principal. 5. Having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in this petition. Admittedly the petitioner has remained at the present place of posting for more than 5 years. He has been transferred in the same capacity to a distance which is hardly 19 k.ms. from his present place of posting. 5. Having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in this petition. Admittedly the petitioner has remained at the present place of posting for more than 5 years. He has been transferred in the same capacity to a distance which is hardly 19 k.ms. from his present place of posting. Pursuant to the petitioner's transfer vide order dated 26.8.2006 after one month on the vacant post the third respondent has been transferred and posted as Incharge Principal vide order dated 26.9.2006. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the petitioner has been transferred to accommodate the third respondent. The third respondent has not been posted as Principal of the said school but has been posted as Incharge Principal. Whether the third respondent could have been posted even as Incharge Principal of the said school, has to be looked into by the first respondent on administrative side. 6. In the circumstances, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been transferred to a nearby place in the same capacity that too after more than 5 years, no case for interference is made out. 7. Accordingly the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.