Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1233 (MP)

Pratap Singh Yadav v. State of M. P.

2012-11-30

SUJOY PAUL

body2012
Judgment Heard. 2. This is second round of litigation by the petitioner against the transfer order. Earlier, petitioner assailed the order dated 29/09/2012 Annexure-P/1(A) by filing W.P.No. 8024/12. The said petition was disposed of on 01/11/2012 directing the C.E.O. to consider the representation and till decision, impugned order was stayed. In turn, by order dated 20/11/2012 the representation is rejected, which is now called in question in this petition. 3. The singular contention raised by Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi is that as per the transfer policy dated 31/03/2012 Annexure-P/2 for transferring the employee, the consent of General Administration Committee was required and the impugned order dated 29/09/2012 is passed after the approval by the General Administration Committee. He submits that while rejecting the representation, no approval has been taken from the said committee and therefore, impugned order is liable to be interfered with. 4. Shri R.P. Rathi Government Advocate supported the order passed by the authorities. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. A perusal of Annexure-P/2 dated 30/03/2012 shows that as per Clause-4 after decision of General Administration Committee of Zila Panchayat transfer order may be issued. Shri Raghuvanshi has not doubted the validity of Annexure-P/1(A) on the said ground and has fairly stated that before issuance of the impugned order dated 29/09/2012, the necessary decision of the committee was already taken. The singular ground of attack is that before deciding the representation by Annexure-P/1 the sanction from the said committee was not taken. A careful perusal of Annexure-P/2 shows that there is no such obligation on the part of the authorities to take further consent while deciding the representation. No other enabling provision is demonstrated in support of the aforesaid singular contention. No other point is pressed by the petitioner. 7. Since, singular contention cannot be accepted, I find no reason to interfere in this matter. Petition sans substance and is hereby dismissed. No costs.