Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 279 (MP)

Chandrabhan Singh v. State of M. P.

2016-04-04

SHEEL NAGU

body2016
ORDER 1. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order of transfer of the petitioner who is Secretary of the Gram Panchayat from Shahvazpur to Mahualampur, Janpad Panchayat Ashoknagar vide P-1. Pertinently, by the same order respondent No.6 has been transferred in place of the petitioner. 2. The basic ground of challenge to the order is by placing reliance on the Clause 2 of the transfer policy of State of M.P. dated 24.7. 2014 (vide P-6) which reads thus : 2- xzke iapk;r lfpo dk LFkkukarj.k dk;Zjr tuin iapk;r ds Hkhrj gh fudVLFk xzke iapk;r es fd;k tk,xkA 3. A bare perusal of the said clause indicates that the competent authority shall try to ensure that the Secretary who is required to be moved on transfer is placed at Gram Panchayat which is as near to the present place of posting as possible within the same Janpad Panchayat. 4. Learned counsel for the rival parties including the State who has filed reply submit that the petitioner’s home panchayat is Shahvazpur and therefore in view of bar in clause 1 of the said policy (P-6) he could not be allowed to continue in the home Gram Panchayat and therefore his transfer away from Gram Panchayat was in administrative exigency and therefore order of transfer is sustainable in the eyes of law. For convenience and ready reference Clause 1 of the policy is reproduced below : ftys esa dk;Zjr xzke iapk;r lfpoksa ds 'kr&izfr'kr LFkkukarj.k iz'kklfud vkèkkj ij 1 vxLr 2014 dh vof/k esa fd, tk,axsA fdUrq iSr`d xzke iapk;r esa fdlh lfpo dks inLFk ugha fd;k tk,xkA 5. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. 6. Perusal of the return indicates that there is no iota of response in regard to main contention of the petitioner that whether effort was made while transferring him vide Annexure P-1 to ensure his posting at the nearest possible Gram Panchayat. 7. Gram Panchayat Mahualampur, where the petitioner has been transferred is situated 40 Kms away from the present place of posting. There is no material on record brought forth either by the petitioner or by the respondents to indicate that there is any Gram Panchayat nearer in distance to the place of transfer of the petitioner to which the petitioner could be posted. 8. There is no material on record brought forth either by the petitioner or by the respondents to indicate that there is any Gram Panchayat nearer in distance to the place of transfer of the petitioner to which the petitioner could be posted. 8. From the above, it is evident that the competent authority has not applied it’s mind to Clause 2 of the said transfer policy before issuing the impugned transfer. 9. However what is relevant is that the petitioner cannot be continued at Shahvazpur and therefore his transfer to Shahvazpur cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, this Court upholds the impugned order to the extent it transfers the petitioner out of Shahvazpur. 10. However, to the extent of posting him at Mahualampur, this Court is inclined to interfere since it demonstrates non-application of mind and is thus arbitrary and unreasonable thereby violating Article 14/16 of Constitution of India. 11. Thus, this Court directs the competent authority i.e. Zila Panchayat, Ashoknagar to reconsider the case of the petitioner solely on the aspect of clause 2 of the said policy and if there is any vacancy of the post of Secretary of any Gram Panchayat which is situated nearer to the place of posting i.e. Mahualampur, then the case of the petitioner be considered and consequential order in that respect be passed. 12. Let the above said exercise be completed within 30 daysfrom the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 13. Till the decision is taken by the competent authority, the interim order granted by this Court which is subsisting till date shall continue to be in operation. 14. The petitioner is directed to submit copy of this order within 10 working days from today before the competent authority or else the above said direction passed in favour of the petitioner shall become null and void.