Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1053 (MP)

Karan Singh v. State of M. P.

2012-10-11

K.K.LAHOTI, SUSHIL HARKAULI

body2012
JUDGMENT : Heard on the question of admission. This intra-Court appeal challenges the order dated 27-7-2012 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. No.,11161/2012. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant at the relevant time was posted as Constable at Sagar District and was transferred vide order dated 14-7-2012 to the adjoining Chhatarpur District. The appellant challenged the said order of transfer on the ground of persona inconvenience, and on the ground that at his present place of posting he was senior. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the order of transfer cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of personal inconvenience and that due to transfer the appellant's seniority was not being affected. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the State. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant may be permitted to prefer representation and direction may be issued to the concerned authority to consider the representation of the appellant in accordance with the facts, the policy and the administrative exigencies. Even, without filing of any writ petition, any employee is entitled to bring his problems to the notice of his employer, and in such an event, the employer should consider the same. However, in the circumstances pointed out by the appellant, we direct if any representation is made by the appellant along with a certified copy of this order precisely pointing out his problems and indicating the relief sought, the same may be decided by the authority, competent to transfer the appellant, within a period of one month from the date of its receipt in accordance with the relevant factors. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in the meantime, the transfer should be stayed. It is well settled law by the Supreme Court that transfer is an incidence of service which cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India until and unless the transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions. This would, in substance, mean that unless either of the aforesaid grounds exist, the High Court cannot entertain the writ petitions against transfer orders in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court. This would, in substance, mean that unless either of the aforesaid grounds exist, the High Court cannot entertain the writ petitions against transfer orders in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court. It would be anomalous for the High Court to say that though we cannot entertain the writ petition we will grant interim relief. It is trite that interim reliefs are only in aid of the final relief, and consequently, no interim relief is permissible, where the final relief is not permissible. In view of aforesaid, we are unable to agree with the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant for grant of a status quo order, which in effect means staying of the transfer order. Therefore, the contention is rejected. With the aforesaid direction, the writ Appeal stands disposed of.