Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2017
WP No. 6755/2017
(Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of MP & Ors.)
09/10/2017
Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri A.K. Nirankari, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents/ State on advance copy.
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
In this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 28/09/2017 passed by respondent No. 3, whereby, the suspension order of the petitioner has been revoked and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated as Assistant Grade - III and posted at Government Higher Secondary School Radhora, Block Porsa, District Morena.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that impugned order is contrary to law as laid down by this Court. The respondents No. 2 & 3 have no legal right to transfer the petitioner after revocation of suspension order especially when the revocation of suspension order has been issued with the consent of Collector. The petitioner would not have been transferred at Government Higher Secondary School Radhora, Block Porsa, District Morena. The petitioner has already preferred a complaint/representation dated 03/10/2017 (Annexure P/11) before the competent authority of the respondents which is still pending consideration, therefore, the respondents may be directed to decide the pending representation of the petitioner as expeditiously as WP No. 6755/2017 (Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of MP & Ors.) possible.
On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the State has no objection to this innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.
In view of aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondent No. 3/District Education Officer, Dist. Morena to decide the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure P/11), if the same is not already decided, by passing a reasoned and speaking order on each and every grounds raised in the representation (Annexure P/11) as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order passed today. Till the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P/11) is decided by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue at his present place of posting i.e. in the office of Block Education Officer, Dist. Morena.
It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
(S.A DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Durgekar*