Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1250 (MP)

Sandeep Kumar Ganvir v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-10-17

VISHAL MISHRA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 04.10.2022 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from ITI Balaghat to ITI Barghat, District Seoni. 2. Apart from other grounds which have been raised in the writ petition, one another ground is that the petitioner's son is studying in Class-10 and he has to appear in the Board Examination 2022 - 2023. A certificate of the Principal of the school has been annexed alongwith the petition in this regard. It is argued that it is a mid-session transfer, therefore, the transfer of the petitioner will adversely affect the academic career of his son studying in Class-10. 3. The aforesaid aspect was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Director of School Education Madras and Others VS. O. Karuppa Thevan and Another reported in 1994 Supp.(2) Supreme Court Case 666: wherein, the Supreme Court has held as under:- "The tribunal has erred in law in holding that the respondent employee ought to have been heard before transfer. No law requires an employee to be heard before his transfer when the authorities make the transfer for the exigencies of administration. However, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that in view of the fact that respondent's children are studying in school, the transfer should not have been effected during mid-academic term. Although there is no such rule, we are of the view that in effecting transfer, the fact that the children of an employee are studying should be given due weight, if the exigencies of the service are not urgent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant was unable to point out that there was such urgency in the present case that the employee could not have been accommodated till the end of the current academic year. 3e, therefore, while setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, direct that the appellant should not effect the transfer till the end of the current academic year. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.' 4. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid a detailed representation (Annexure P/6) has already been filed which is pending consideration before the authorities. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.' 4. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid a detailed representation (Annexure P/6) has already been filed which is pending consideration before the authorities. It is further submitted that he has not been relieved till date and is still working, therefore, till decision on the representation, he may be permitted to work at the present place of posting. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State could not dispute the preposition held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case and also could not dispute the documents filed along with the petition pointing out the fact that the son of the petitioner is studying in Class-10 and having board examination this year. 6. In such circumstances, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to respondent within a period of seven working days from today and in case such a representation is filed within a period of seven working days, respondent is directed to dwell upon the same and pass a self contained speaking order considering the judgement passed by the Supreme Court within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and communicate the outcome to the petitioner. 7. Till the decision on the representation, if the petitioner is not already relieved, he is permitted to continue at the present place of posting i.e. ITI, Balaghat. 8. Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. C.C. as per rules.