Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Uday Dolas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2017
WP-11127-2017
(DR UDAY DOLAS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
02-08-2017
Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Piyush Jain, learned PL for the respondent/State.
The petitioner is presently posted as Assistant Professor, Mathematics from Sehore to Government Degree College, Ashta. The petitionerâs contention is that in addition to his regular work, he is also working as Associate NCC Officer and is responsible for the appointment of hundreds of NCC students in the army.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been transferred to Asta, District Sehore where the course of NCC is not available and as such expertise of the petitioner shall not be exploited in a proper manner. It is further submitted that at Sehore where the petitioner is posted there are two posts available and as such the petitioner can be accommodated at Sehore itself, where his wife is posted as Assistant Professor at Government Girls College, Sehore. The petitioner has also submitted a representation on 15.07.2017 to the respondents but till date no final order has been passed on the same. He further submits that the provisions of National Cadet Corps Act, 1948 has not been followed.
On the other hand, learned GA for the respondent/ State has submitted that the petitioner has already been relieved on 22.07.2017 and as such nothing survives in this petition. Learned counsel has also relied upon the other judgments of the co- ordinate Bench of this Court wherein the petitions being W.P.No.11133/2017 and WP No.10483/2017 challenging the order of transfer has been dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner enjoys a very good reputation at the college at Sehore and it also appears that he was responsible for the enlistment of many NCC cadets into the Indian Army. Petitioner has submitted a representation before the respondents but has not raised certain grounds in the representation which have been raised in the petition.
Under these circumstances, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to resubmit his representation before the competent authority, raising all his grievances / grounds, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In turn the said authority shall decide the same in accordance with law taking into account the documents filed and relied upon by the petitioner, within a further period of six weeks.
So far as the decisions relied upon by the respondents are concerned, the same are not applicable in the present case as the facts are distinguishable.
Till the petitionerâs representation is decided, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 10.07.2017 (Annexure P/1) shall remain stayed and he shall be allowed to work at Sehore.
C.C. As per rules.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Vikram