Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abdul Hassan Qureshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2016
WP-18153-2016
(ABDUL HASSAN QURESHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
11-11-2016
Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. J. Pandit, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 06/10/2016 passed by Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Damoh thereby rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner.
The petitioner is working on the post of Panchayat Secretary. Vide order dated 19/08/2016 he was transferred from Magron to Batiyagarh. He submitted representation/appeal against the said order on 07/09/2016 Annexure P/2. The petitioner, thereafter approached this Court by filing a writ petition No.15438/2016. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 15/09/2016 directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation/appeal in light of the Clause 12 of the Policy dated 04/08/2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without following the procedure, the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Damoh heard the appeal and rejected the same on 06/10/2016. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. He further submits that as per Clause 12 of the Policy dated 04/08/2016, an appeal against the transfer order will be decided by the Commissioner/ Director Panchayat Raj and, therefore, the Chief Executive Officer has no power to heard and reject the appeal. Therefore, he prays that the order dated 06/10/2016 be quashed.
This Court vide order dated 04/11/2016 has directed the respondents to seek instructions in the matter.
On the basis of instructions, learned Government Advocate submits that respondent No.3 vide order dated 26/10/2016 has set aside the order dated 06/10/2016 and the matter has been referred to the Commissioner for deciding the appeal vide letter dated 09/11/2016.
In view of the aforesaid letter, as respondent No.3 has already set aside the order dated 06/10/2016 and the appeal has been referred to the Commissioner for deciding the same, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the appeal/representation preferred by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
For a period of one month or till the appeal is decided whichever is earlier, the impugned transfer order dated 06/10/2016 so far as it relates to the petitioner shall remain stayed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MISS VANDANA KASREKAR) JUDGE manju