Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 242 (MP)

Khemchand Mahore v. State of M. P.

2018-02-28

HEMANT GUPTA, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2018
ORDER 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 19.2.2018 in Writ Petition No. 3678/2018 whereby, the transfer for the appellant from Chhindwara to Guna (wrongly mentioned in the impugned order as “Bhind” by the learned Single Bench) was not interfered with. 2. The appellant was transferred to Guna vide order dated 14.7.2017. The appellant filed a Writ Petition No.11188/2017 which was decided on 31.7.2017 with a direction to decide the representation. Subsequently, the representation was decided on 29.1.2018. The challenge to the said order remained unsuccessful before the learned Single Bench. 3. As per the writ petition, the appellant is promoted as a Revenue Inspector on 12.7.2012 and posted in the office of Collector, Land Records, Betul, adjoining district of Chhindwara. Subsequently, on 18.5.2015 he was transferred from Betul to Chhindwara on his own request. After serving five years in Chhindwara and Betul, the appellant has been transferred to Guna. 4. The appellant contends that his wife is working as a Guest Teacher at Chhindwara and his children are studying at Chhindwara, therefore, he should be accommodated at Chhindwara. It is also contended that there are vacancies available at Chhindwara, therefore, his transfer from Chhindwara to Guna is not in administrative exigency. The learned counsel for the appellant also relies upon a Single Bench order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 20458/2017 (Mumtaz Ali v. The State of Madhay Pradesh) decided on 27.11.2017, whereby in respect of an office bearer of Union, this Court directed the representation to be decided. Such representation was already decided for the reason that such transfer was said to be contrary to the Clause 8.19 of the Transfer Policy. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present appeal. The appellant has no right to choose his place of posting. He continued in the area of Chhindwara for last five years since the time he was promoted in the year 2012, earlier in Betul and then in Chhindwara. The reference may be made to the Supreme Court judgment, reported as (2004) 7 SCC 405 (State of U.P. and another v. Siya Ram and another) wherein it has been held that the Court should not interfere in the order of transfer. The relevant extract reads as under : “5. The reference may be made to the Supreme Court judgment, reported as (2004) 7 SCC 405 (State of U.P. and another v. Siya Ram and another) wherein it has been held that the Court should not interfere in the order of transfer. The relevant extract reads as under : “5. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India had gone into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service. That would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned. No Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan [ (2001) 8 SCC 574 ].” 6. The reliance of the appellant on the order passed in Mumtaz Ali's case, to say the least, is misconceived. The learned Single Bench should not have interfered with the order of transfer on the ground that it is contrary to the Transfer Policy. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported as (1993) 4 SCC 357 (Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas) has held that Transfer Policy is internal guidelines for the department. Such Transfer Policy does not confer any enforceable right in favour of the employee. Therefore, the order passed in Mumtaz Ali's case is contrary to the Supreme Court judgment. We are unable to agree with the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that such judgment is in anyway relevant for the decision of the present appeal. 7. Such Transfer Policy does not confer any enforceable right in favour of the employee. Therefore, the order passed in Mumtaz Ali's case is contrary to the Supreme Court judgment. We are unable to agree with the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that such judgment is in anyway relevant for the decision of the present appeal. 7. In view thereof, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed.