Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 728 (MP)

Dhirendera Sikarwar v. State of M. P.

2021-11-10

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI

body2021
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been made to order dated 31.8.2021 (Annexure P/1), whereby petitioner, a Patwari, has been transferred from Tehsil Mehgaon to Tehsil Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.) on the ground of administrative exigency. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the impugned transfer order is in blatant violation of the transfer policy. It is submitted that earlier vide order dated 5.7.2019, the petitioner has been transferred from Gram Varah, Tehsil Lahar to Tehsil Mehgaon and in compliance of the said transfer order, the petitioner has joined at Mehgaon, but thereafter vide impugned transfer order within a period of two years, the petitioner has again been transferred from Tehsil Mehgaon Tehsil Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.) on the ground of administrative exigency, though no such administrative exigency exists, which indicates frequent transfer of the petitioner since as per transfer policy itself an employee has to be kept in a particular place at least for a period of three years. The father of the petitioner is aged about 83 years and has been suffering from various ailments and except the petitioner there is no other male member in the family to take care of his old aged father. The petitioner is having two sons one is studying in B.Com and another son is studying in IX class and due to transfer of the petitioner, their academic career would be adversely affected. It is further submitted that petitioner has already submitted a representation before the competent authority, which is pending consideration. On these grounds, prays for quashing of the impugned order. 4. In response, learned State counsel submits that no interference with the order of transfer is warranted. Moreover, the transfer policy is in the nature of guidelines. There is no statutory violation of any rules and no mala fide has been pleaded. With the aforesaid, he submitted that the petition being devoid of merit and substance deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is substantial force in the submissions advanced by learned Government Advocate. Moreover, it is well settled in law that transfer is an incidence of service. Which employee should be posted where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is substantial force in the submissions advanced by learned Government Advocate. Moreover, it is well settled in law that transfer is an incidence of service. Which employee should be posted where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. The Supreme Court recently in the case of Namrata Verma v. State of U.P. and others by order date.6.9.2021 passed in SLP (Civil) No.36717/2017 has held that “it is not for the employee to insist to transfer him/her and/or not to transfer him/her at a particular place. It is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the requirement. Until and unless the transfer is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. The Supreme Court while dealing with the scope of judicial review in the matter of transfer, held that transfer is an incidence of service and normally should not be interfered with by the Court. If any administrative guidelines recalling transfer of an employee are violated, at best the same confers the right on the employee to approach the higher authorities for redressal of his grievance. [See: Union of India and Others v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 , State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and others, (2001) 5 SCC 508 , Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104 , State of U.P. and Others v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 1 SCC 402, R.S. Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Venkata 4 WP. No. 4738/2017 (Braj Kishore Paliwal v. State of M.P. and others) Ratnam, (2008) 9 SCC 345 and State of Haryana and Others v. Kashmir Singh and Another, (2010) 13 SCC 306 ]. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case of mala fide or violation of statutory rules, the twin grounds available for interference. The petitioner has no statutory right to remain posted at any particular place. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.