Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 459 (MP)

Naresh Sharma v. State of M. P.

2021-05-04

VISHAL MISHRA

body2021
ORDER 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 26.4.2021 passed by the respondent No.2, by which the petitioner has been attached from the post of Naib Tahsildar Porsa to the office of Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Morena and respondent No.3 has been posted in place of the petitioner. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is working on the post of Naib Tahsildar. It is submitted that the petitioner was selected through M.P.P.S.C. and appointed on the post of Naib Tahsildar. It is further submitted that within a period of two years the petitioner has been transferred four times and within one year petitioner has been transferred thrice. Vide order dated 5.7.2019 the petitioner was transferred from Tahsil Sabalgarh to Tahsil Kailaras and within a period of nine months the petitioner was again transferred vide order dated 8.5.2020 from Tahsil Kailaras to District Election Office, Morena and thereafter within a period of four months the petitioner was again transferred from District Election Office, Morena to Tahsil Porsa. It is submitted that the petitioner has been transferred within a period of short spell of seven months just to accommodate the respondent No.3, who is holding the post of Incharge Tahsildar. The aforesaid amounts to frequent transfer and runs contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC 1955 . He has prayed for quashment of the impugned order. 3. Counsel for the State has denied all the averments and has contended that it is not a transfer. But no justification can be shown by the State counsel for passing the impugned order during this COVID pandemic. No reason has been assigned for shifting the petitioner. 4. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to submit a representation before the respondent No.2/Collector Morena along with certified copy of the order passed today within a period of seven working days and in turn, respondent No.2 is directed to decide the same by passing a self contained speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and communicate outcome of the same within the aforesaid period. 5. 5. As the petitioner is not relieved till date and considering the Corona Pandemic, he is directed to work at his present place of posting i.e. at Porsa. 6. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. E- copy of this order be provided to the petitioner and it is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.