Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 700 (MP)

Ravi Katare v. State of M. P.

2015-07-08

RAJENDRA MENON, SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
ORDER 1. Exemption from filing certified copy of the order as prayed for is granted. 2. As a very short question is involved in this writ appeal and that apart as various Single Benches of this Court have also decided writ petitions identical in nature and the grievance of the appellant in this writ appeal primarily is that certain interim protection granted by the writ Court have not been granted, we propose to deal with the matter and dispose of this appeal after considering the aforesaid submission. 3. The appellant who is working as Professor in the Government Model Science College, Jabalpur calls in question his transfer on various grounds. While hearing the matter the learned writ Court disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the competent authority respondent No.1 and directed the competent authority to decide the representation. A prayer was made that during the pendency of the matter before the competent authority and till the representation is not decided interim protection be granted, inasmuch as, the transfer order be not given effect to. It is said that while praying for the same relief certain orders passed by the Coordinate writ Benches of this Court on various dates were brought to the notice of the learned writ Court. 4. Be that as it may, today during the course of hearing learned counsel for petitioner has produced before us the orders passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No.9419/2015(S) (Dr.Anand Sharma v. State of M.P. and another) wherein also the same order of transfer dated 15.6.2015 was challenged by the petitioner. Orders have been passed by the writ Court in the said case directing the State Government to consider and take a decision on the representation and till then the employee/petitioner was permitted to continue on his present place of posting. Similarly on 1st July, 2015 another Bench in Writ Petition No.9414/2015(S) (Dr. Shailendra Kumar Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and another) passed an order as was done in the case of Dr.Anand Sharma and while doing so on certain fact the transfer of teacher from Mandsore and Shahdol have been cancelled on the representation submitted, were also taken care of by the writ Court. 5. Shailendra Kumar Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and another) passed an order as was done in the case of Dr.Anand Sharma and while doing so on certain fact the transfer of teacher from Mandsore and Shahdol have been cancelled on the representation submitted, were also taken care of by the writ Court. 5. We have perused the order passed in Writ Petition No.9414/2015(S) Dr.Shailendra Kumar Shrivastava and Writ Petition No.9419/2015(S) Dr.Anand Sharma and we find that in all these cases the impugned order of his transfer is passed on 15.6.2015 and somewhat identical allegations have been made and the ground for challenge of transfer are also similar. However in these petitions the petitioners therein have been directed to take recourse to the remedy of filing representation, the competent authority was directed to decide the representation, in the meanwhile the petitioner in these cases were granted interim protection till the representation is decided. Before us 3 orders are produced in which interim protection has been granted whereas in the case of present petitioner the same is denied. 6. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the interest of justice and the question of maintaining of parity and equality requires that when identical orders of transfer are dealt with in particular manner by the writ Court it is in the interest of justice that all other identical cases be also disposed of in identical terms. 7. In view of above we are upholding the order passed by learned writ Court, so far as it refuses to interfere with the order of transfer on merits and directs for deciding the representation. In the light of the findings recorded hereinabove, we direct that on appellant filing certified copy of this order along with a detailed representation to the competent authority within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and on the same being done the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation of the appellant. Till the representation is not decided the appellant be permitted to work at the present place of posting and no coercive steps shall be taken against him. Till the representation is not decided the appellant be permitted to work at the present place of posting and no coercive steps shall be taken against him. In case petitioner has been relieved from the original place of transfer and if no one has joined in place of appellant till date, the appellant be permitted to work at his original place of posting, else respondents shall maintain status quo as it exists today with regard to the working and posting of the appellant and no coercive steps shall be taken on account of non joining of the appellant at the transferred place, till his representation is decided. 8. With the aforesaid direction, this appeal stands disposed of.