Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 780 (MP)

Virendra Kumar Mishra v. State of M. P.

2012-08-06

AJIT SINGH, SANJAY YADAV

body2012
ORDER 1. This intra-Court appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 25.7.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.11281/2012 whereby the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the transfer of the petitioner from Gram Panchayat Barhula to Gram Panchayat Kuthila. 2. Writ petition was directed against the order dated 13.7.2012 whereby the petitioner-appellant, a Panchayat Karmi/Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Barhula has been transferred to Gram Panchayat Kuthila. 3. The transfer as apparent from the order is in furtherance to the decision taken by the State Government vide its order No.F-1/2011/22/ia dated 31.3.2012 and in furtherance to the decision taken by General Administration Committee of Jila Panchayat Rewa in its meeting convened on 12.7.2012. 4. As apparent from the impugned order 14 Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary have been transferred from one Gram Panchayat to another. The petitioner challenged the order on the ground that unless the working of a Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary is complained of, he cannot be subjected to transfer. It is further contended that there being no specific proposal for transferring the petitioner from one Gram Panchayat to another, the Committee was not justified in recommending such transfer. 5. We are also commended to rule 27 of the M.P. Panchayat Service (Recruitment and General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1999 to bring home the submission that unless mutually agreed upon by the receiving Gram Panchayat the petitioner ought not to have been transferred to another Gram Panchayat. We are not impressed by this submission put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner for the simple reason that rule 27 is an enabling provision which empowers the appointing authority on application made by any employee of Panchayat service of other Panchayat to appoint such employee to a same or equivalent post in the Panchayat service on such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon between the two Panchayats and subject to the condition that such appointment shall not be made to post to be filled by promotion and the person so appointed shall receive the junior most rank, for the purpose of seniority, in the cadre of the post to which he is appointed, as it stands on the date of such appointment. 6. 6. The aforesaid rule cannot be read as creating a bar of transfer of Panchayat Karmi/Secretary from one Panchayat to another when under section 69(1) read with section 70(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 it is within the power of the competent authority to appoint a Panchayat Karmi/Secretary for one Gram Panchayat or group of two or more Gram Panchayats. 7. In the case at hand the order passed by the State Government on 31.3.2012 leaves no iota of doubt that a Panchayat Karmi/Secretary can be transferred from one Gram Panchayat to another. Furthermore, the transfer if less than 10% within the district, the same can be done by Jila Panchayat and if it exceeds more than 10% but is within 15% then a prior approval is sought from the Collector of the said district. In the present case no such material is brought on record as would suggest that it was beyond the competence of Jila Panchayat who transferred the petitioner from Gram Panchayat Barhula to Gram Panchayat Kuthila as would warrant an interference. 8. In view whereof we affirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ appeal being devoid of substance.There shall be no order as to costs.