Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 318 (MP)

Arti Khedkar v. State of M. P.

2009-03-09

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2009
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The petitioner is working on the post of Chief Municipal Officer in the Urban Administration Development Department of the State Government. She has been transferred vide order dated 27.2.2009 (Annexure P-2) issued by the first respondent from Rajgarh, District Dhar to Nepanagar, District Burhanpur. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to her appointment 141 on the post of Chief Municipal Officer vide order dated 31.5.2006 (Annexure P-l) she was posted as Chief Municipal Officer, Rajgarh. According to the petitioner after completion of training by her husband he was appointed and posted as Commercial Tax Officer at Dhar vide order dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure P-3). In the circumstances, in view of the transfer policy of the State Government providing that the husband and wife are to be posted at one place, her transfer to Nepanagar, District Burhanpur is violative of said transfer policy. She also stated that vide orders Annexure P-4 to P-12 she has been assigned election duties according to which she has to work as Nodal Officer in regard to the preparation of the voter lists and also as Nodal Officer for implementation of Awareness Programme in regard to the use of Electronic Voting Machine (for shrot EVM). In the circumstances placing reliance on section 28-A of The Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short the R.P. Act) she contends that she could not have been transferred without seeking approval from the Election Commission. She also contends that as no one has been posted at her place, the impugned transfer order deserves to be quashed. 4. Shri M.S. Dwivedi learned panel lawyer appearing for the respondents on the other hand argued that the petitioner is working on the post of Chief Municipal Officer at Rajgarh, District Dhar since 31.5.2006 she has completed almost three years period of her normal tenure of posting at one place. He pointed out that the petitioner has already been relieved in pursuance to the impugned transfer order. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that she is entitled to continue at Rajgarh District Dhar in view of the posting of her husband in Dhar Circle vide order dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure P-3), he submits that in that regard the petitioner has to approach the competent authority of the respondents by submitted representation in that regard. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that she is entitled to continue at Rajgarh District Dhar in view of the posting of her husband in Dhar Circle vide order dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure P-3), he submits that in that regard the petitioner has to approach the competent authority of the respondents by submitted representation in that regard. He submits that if a representation is submitted by the petitioner it shall be appropriately decided. He further submits that assigning work in regard to preparation of voter lists and the Awareness Programme about E.Y.M. can be no ground to interfere into the impugned transfer order. He also submits that the petitioner has been transferred on: 21.2.2009 prior to the issuance of the notification declaring the election programme of the Parliamentary elections and in the circumstances there was no necessity on the part of the first respondent to have sought permission from the election commission for issuance of the impugned transfer order. He further submits that since no one has been posted at her place the petitioner's transfer which is on administrative exigencies, needs no interference. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties in my considered view no case is made out to interfere into the impugned transfer order. 6. As regards to the petitioner's grievance that her husband has been posted vide order dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure P-3) in the Dhar circle of the Commercial Tax Department and as such she could not have been transferred from Rajgarh, District Dhar to Nepanagar, DistrictBurhanpur, I am of the view that the petitioner having completed almost two years and nine months at Rajgarh, District Dhar cannot claim as of right to remain at Rajgarh, District Dhar. However this aspect of the matter as to whether the petitioner in view of posting of her husband vide order dated 28.1.2009 at Dhar circle can be continued at Rajgarh District Dhar has to be considered by the respondent on administrative side on petitioner's filing appropriate representation for the same. 7. As regard the petitioner's contention that she could not have been transferred without seeking prior permission from the Election Commission is also of no avail. The petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 27.2.2009 (Annexure P-2) on administrative ground prior to declaration of the election petitioners reliance on section 28-A of the R.P. Act is misconceived. 7. As regard the petitioner's contention that she could not have been transferred without seeking prior permission from the Election Commission is also of no avail. The petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 27.2.2009 (Annexure P-2) on administrative ground prior to declaration of the election petitioners reliance on section 28-A of the R.P. Act is misconceived. Section 28-A has applicability only from the date of the notification calling for election and that too for the specified officers in the said section and part-IV of Chapter IV of the R.P. Act. However, such is not the case in this matter. Neither the elections were notified when the order was passed nor the petitioner is an officer described under the said section 28-A or part IV of Chapter IV of the R.P. Act. On going through the documents Annexure P-4 to P-12 it is revealed that the duties entrusted to the petitioner have come to an end except the said awareness program of the use of E.V.M. which is for general awareness. Such a programme to educate the electorates has to be continued at all places including the place where the petitioner has been transferred. 8. Merely because no one has been posted at the petitioner's place is also no ground to interfere into the impugned order by which the petitioner has been transferred. It would be clear from the impugned order itself at Nepanagar also where the petitioner has been transferred the post of the Chief Municipal Officer was vacant and one Mahendra Vashistha was holding the charge. Therefore if on the basis of administrative exigencies on the vacant post, the petitioner has been transferred the same cannot be interfered on the ground that no one has been posted at her place. 9. It is not the case of the petitioner that she has been transferred mala fidely or there is any arbitrary exercise of powers. As observed it is also not a case of breach of any statutory provision, therefore, no case for interference in the impugned transfer order is made out. 9. It is not the case of the petitioner that she has been transferred mala fidely or there is any arbitrary exercise of powers. As observed it is also not a case of breach of any statutory provision, therefore, no case for interference in the impugned transfer order is made out. 10.However in case the petitioner submits a representation before the first respondent, in regard to her claim on the basis of posting of her husband at Dhar Circle the first respondent shall consider the same and take appropriate decision on it in accordance with the transfer policy, as expeditiously as possible without being influenced by the observations made in this order in that regard and also by the dismissal of this petition. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.