Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 505 (MP)

Sunita Deodi v. State of M. P.

2025-08-18

MANINDER S.BHATTI

body2025
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of order dated 9.6.2025 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 1.8.2025 (Annexure P10), passed by respondent No. 1. 2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that this is second visit of the petitioner to this Court. Earlier also the petitioner had filed a petition vide W.P. No. 20426 of 2025 assailing transfer order dated 9.6.2025 (Annexure P-1). The said writ petition was dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.6.2025 (Annexure P-7). Assailing the order dated 19.6.2025, the petitioner preferred a writ appeal vide W.A. No. 1741 of 2025, which was disposed of by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.6.2025 (Annexure P-8) and while disposing of the said appeal, the Division Bench granted liberty to the petitioner to submit supplementary representation and directed the respondents therein to take decision on previous representation dated 9.6.2025 as well as supplementary representation and the till the decision on the representations, interim protection was also granted to the petitioner. The Division Bench in Para 5 observed that the Court has neither considered nor commented on the merits or the contentions of the either party and the competent Authority was left to decide the representation without being influenced by anything stated in the order on merits. The counsel for the petitioner contends that subsequently the representation of the petitioner has been turned down vide order dated 30.6.2025 (Annexure P-9). 3. It is contended that the employees who are approaching the age of superannuation should not be subjected to transfer in view of the provision of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) rules, 1976 and while dealing with this aspect, the transfer order was quashed by Indore Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.6.2025 passed in W.P. No. 21574 of 2025 ( Smt. Asha Tiwari v. State of M.P. & others) and also by this Court vide order dated 14.7.2025 passed in W.P. No. 24542 of 2025 ( I.K. Mansoori v. State of M.P. & others). It is contended that in the present case, the Authority while deciding the representation has ignored this aspect of the matter that in terms of Clause 22 of the transfer policy, the employees who are approaching the age of superannuation should not be subjected to transfer in view of their impending superannuation. 4. It is contended that in the present case, the Authority while deciding the representation has ignored this aspect of the matter that in terms of Clause 22 of the transfer policy, the employees who are approaching the age of superannuation should not be subjected to transfer in view of their impending superannuation. 4. The counsel for the State submits that in the previous petition filed by the petitioner vide W.P. No. 20426 of 2025, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court after dealing with the contentions of the rival parties, passed an elaborate order on 19.6.2025 (Annexure P-7). The co-ordinate Bench has also dealt with the stand of the petitioner as regard Clause 22 of the transfer order, which is evident from paragraphs 2, 13 and 14 of the order dated 19.6.2025. The said order was assailed by the petitioner before the Division Bench of this Court vide W.A. No. 1741 of 2025. However, the Division did not set aside the order dated 19.6.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench, therefore, the same has attained finality in absence of any other challenge. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 6. On perusal of record, it reflects that previously the petitioner had filed a petition vide W.P. No. 20426 of 2025 challenging order dated 9.6.2025, which was dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with the rival contentions of the parties. The co-ordinate Bench in paragraphs 13 and 14 has observed as under:- 13 . Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter argued that as per clause 22 of transfer policy, the transfer should not be Ordered within one year of superannuation. 14. Considering the said ground, it is imperative to note that the transfer Order has been issued more than one year prior to superannuation of the petitioner. Even otherwise, clause 22 of the transfer policy cannot be construed like a statutory provision. It is settled in law that the transfer policy is only a guideline and it is not required to be construed like a statutory law. Deviations from transfer policy can always be made if the exigencies of the administration so demand. The petitioner being a senior Officer having put in almost 39 years of service and Pt. It is settled in law that the transfer policy is only a guideline and it is not required to be construed like a statutory law. Deviations from transfer policy can always be made if the exigencies of the administration so demand. The petitioner being a senior Officer having put in almost 39 years of service and Pt. S.N. Shukla University, Shahdol being a relatively new State University, her experience would be useful for the said University which is at its nascent stage of existence. 7. A perusal of the aforesaid findings of the co-ordinate Bench reflects that the contention of the petitioner as regards Clause 22 of the transfer policy was dealt with and the co-ordinate Bench came to the conclusion that transfer order of the petitioner was issued more than one year prior to the age of superannuation and it was further observed that clause 22 of the transfer policy has no statutory force and, therefore, could not have been relied upon. The co-ordinate Bench has also considered the need of service of the petitioner at newly set up University i.e. Pt. S.N. Shukla University, Shahdol. 8. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the writ appeal which was filed by the petitioner was taken up for hearing on 27.6.2025 and paragraph 1 of the order dated 27.6.2025 (Annexure P-8) reflects that the said appeal was sought to be withdrawn by the petitioner as prayer was made to file a supplementary representation. Paragraph 1 of the order passed by the Division Bench clearly reflects that the petitioner did not assail the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench on merit. On the contrary made prayer to withdraw the writ appeal and accordingly, considering the aforesaid prayer, the said writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, which is further evident from paragraph 2 of the order passed by the Division Bench. The Division Bench directed the respondents therein to take decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner. It is further evident from perusal of paragraph 5 of the order that the Division Bench has observed that the competent Authority shall decide the representation without being influenced by anything stated in that order, i.e. the order passed by the Division Bench. So far as the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No. 20426 of 2025 is concerned, the Division Bench did not interfere with the same on merits. So far as the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No. 20426 of 2025 is concerned, the Division Bench did not interfere with the same on merits. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to take recourse to observation made by the Division Bench in paragraph 5 of the order as the Division Bench did not deal with the validity of the transfer order on merit. 9. The representation of the petitioner having been dealt with by the Authority concerned has been rejected while assigning cogent reasons. This Court is of the considered view that the Authority has not committed any error while dismissing the representation. The order of transfer has been issued in view of administrative exigency and validity of the same has already been decided by the co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No. 20426 of 2025 while dismissing the petition. The said order has already attained finality and has become conclusive, therefore, in the considered view of this Court, interference with the impugned order and order of rejection of representation is not warranted. 10. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. No costs. 11. Certified copy today.