Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Kumar Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 August, 2012
Arun Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State & ors.
W.P.No.13755/2012
30/08/2012
Shri Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Revenue Inspector and has been transferred from District-Satna to District-Panna. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made on various grounds. The first ground is that on the same date, two orders have been passed vide Annexure-P1 and Annexure-P2, transferring the petitioner.
The aforesaid contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Annexure-P1 is an order passed by the State Government transferring the petitioner from one District to another, whereas Annexure-P2 is an order passed by the Collector in view of certain directions given by the local Minister granting posting of the petitioner at the same district. As the order Annexure-P1 is passed by the State Government, petitioner should comply with the requirement of the order of State Government Annexure-P1, as the order passed by the Collector has been superseded by the State Government. The order of transfer is also challenged on the ground of breach of transfer policy.
Interference into the order of transfer cannot be made by this Court on the ground of breach of transfer policy. Merely on the ground of breach of transfer policy, judicial review of an administrative order passed is not permissible in view of the law laid down in the cases of Union of India Vs. S. L. Abbas AIR Arun Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State & ors.
1993, SC 2444 and Shri R. S. Choudhary Vs. State of M. P. and others, ILR 2007 (M. P.) Pg. 1397.
That apart, petitioner has tried to emphasize that the petitioner is a Revenue Inspector and appointments are made in the District Cadre post and, therefore, transfer is unsustainable. This ground is already considered by this Court in W.P.No.10868/2012 and similar grounds have been rejected on 23.7.2012 after following the law laid down in the cases of Dhaniram Ahirwar and another Vs. High Court of M.P. and another 1995 MPLJ 545 and Awadhesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and others 2012 (2) MPHT 277.
In view of the aforesaid, all the grounds raised are found to be misconceived and cannot be sustained, keeping in view the fact that the transfer of the petitioner is made on administrative consideration and the grounds raised are not such on the basis of which, interference by this Court is made out.
Accordingly, if the representation of the petitioner is pending consideration, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge nd