Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naval Kishore Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 October, 2016
WP-17212-2016
(NAVAL KISHORE CHOUHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
19-10-2016
Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Girish Kekre, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Heard on admission.
Shri Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was transferred from Hoshangabad to Shivpuri. The petitioner has long experience of wild life, whereas the respondent No.4 does not have any such experience. Certain Senior Officers (PCCF) recommended in favour of the petitioner. The respondents rejected the representation of the petitioner on incorrect grounds. He is subjected to transfer within a short span of time and based on incorrect provisions of transfer policy. Prayer is opposed by Shri Kekre, learned Govt. Advocate. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. It is seen that this is second visit of the petitioner to this Court. Against the impugned transfer order, petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing W.P. No.14892/2016, which was disposed of by directing the respondents to decide the representation. The representation is rejected by order dated 07.10.2016, which is called in question in this round. The spinal issue is whether this rejection order is passed in accordance with law or not. It is seen that the petitioner remained posted in Satpuda Tiger Reserve, Hoshangabad for more than four years. The petitioner is admittedly a Class II Gazetted Officer. The principle of frequent transfer is normally invoked in cases of low paid Class III and Class IV employees. [See: B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1986 SC 1955]. During the course of argument, despite specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any provision which requires any kind of experience which respondent No.4 is allegedly lacking.
In my view, the employee has no lien on a place. The employee cannot claim that he should be posted on a particular place. The transfer order can be interfered with if it runs contrary to any statutory provision (not executive instruction), proved to be mala fide, changes the service condition of an employee to his detriment or passed by an incompetent authority. Personal inconvenience cannot be a ground because transfer is an incidence of service. In absence of any ingredients on which interference can be made, interference is declined.
Petition is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed.
(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE Biswal