Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 635 (MP)

Pratap Singh v. State of M. P.

2020-05-28

S.C.SHARMA

body2020
ORDER 1. The present writ petition is arising out of the order dated 8.5.2020 (Annexure-P-1), by which, the petitioner has been transferred from District - Dhar to District - Rajgarh, which is a neighbouring district. The petitioner's contention is that he was transferred from Tikamgarh vide order dated 11.12.2017 and now by the impugned order dated 5.8.2020, he has been transferred to the neighbouring District - Rajgarh, even though, he has not completed three years' tenure. 2. Other ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by-election is going to take place in Dhar as informed by the Chief Election Commissioner, and therefore, as elections are going to take place in near future, the transfer order is bad in law. It has also been argued that the petitioner has been assigned election duty. 3. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State has argued before this Court that the petitioner is not a victim of frequent transfer, he is working on the post of Joint Collector and the guidelines issued by the State Government do permit such transfer. He has also argued that the petitioner has completed substantial period at the present place of posting and the so called document on the basis of which, the petitioner is stating that the election duty has been assigned, is a distribution memo issued by the Collector in respect of various officers posted at District - Dhar. 4. This Court has carefully gone through the distribution memo issued by the Collector, Dhar and it is not an order passed by the Election Commission of India or State Election Commission posting the petitioner as an Election Officer. 5. Otherwise also, the Collector is an Administrative Officer in the district and he can very well assign the work as per distribution memo to some other officers. Merely because in future the elections are going to take place, it does not mean that the petitioner enjoys immunity. Otherwise also, the transfer policy do permit such transfer and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with transfer order. 6. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that a representation has been preferred by the petitioner on 8.5.2020 (Annexure-P-9), and therefore, the respondents be directed to decide the petitioner's representation. 7. Otherwise also, the transfer policy do permit such transfer and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with transfer order. 6. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that a representation has been preferred by the petitioner on 8.5.2020 (Annexure-P-9), and therefore, the respondents be directed to decide the petitioner's representation. 7. Resultantly, the respondents are directed to decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands disposed of.