Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 671 (MP)

GADIPAL RAMPURE v. STATE OF M. P.

2019-09-17

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2019
ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri Ankur Tiwari, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri S. N. Seth, Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Shri B. M. Patel, Counsel for the intervenor. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 14-8-2019 passed by Collector, Morena by which the petitioner has been transferred from Patwari Halka No. 105 Silaytha, Tahsil Jaura, District Morena to Patwari Halka No. 24 Chhinwara Tahsil Jaura, District Morena. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working at the said place from 21-10-2015. It is submitted that without transferring the petitioner, the respondents had posted one Vivek Kumar Sharma in his place by order dated 5-7-2019. Accordingly, the said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 13929/2019. However, during the pendency of the said petition, since the transfer order of the petitioner was issued, therefore, the petitioner withdrew the said petition on 28-8-2019. It is submitted that by order dated 14-8-2019, the petitioner has been transferred in order to accommodate Vivek Kumar Sharma and since the transfer order has been issued after the imposition of ban period, therefore, necessary approval as required under clause-12.2 of the Transfer Policy has not been obtained. 4. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State as well as counsel for the intervenor that the petitioner has already withdrawn the W. P. No. 13929/2019 without seeking any liberty by which the posting order of the intervenor Vivek Kumar Sharma was challenged. Thus it is clear that the transfer order of Vivek Kumar Sharma by order dated 5-7-2019 at the place of posting of the petitioner has remained unchallenged. Since the petitioner has already completed more than four years of his tenure at the present place of posting, therefore, if the petitioner has been transferred, then it cannot be said that his transfer is for accommodating the intervenor. 5. Further, it is submitted by the parties that it is specifically mentioned that the order under challenge has been issued after complying the provisions of clause 12.2 of the Transfer Policy. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Clause 12.2 of the Transfer Policy reads as under : 8. Opening sentence of the impugned order dated 14-8-2019 reads as under : 9. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Clause 12.2 of the Transfer Policy reads as under : 8. Opening sentence of the impugned order dated 14-8-2019 reads as under : 9. Thus it is clear that the transfer order of the petitioner has been issued after obtaining due permission as required under clause 12.2 of the Transfer Policy. Since the petitioner has already withdrawn the petition by which he had challenged the posting of intervenor in his place and, therefore in case if this petition is entertained then the net result would be that two persons will be working against one sanctioned post and that situation cannot be created by this Court. Further, the petitioner has already completed more than four years of his tenure at the present place of posting. It is well established principle of law that no employee can claim that he should be allowed to work at a particular place of posting. Transfer is an exigency of service. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned transfer order dated 14-8-2019 does not require any interference. 10. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.