Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kamini Pandole vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 December, 2012
1
smt. kamni pandole vs. state
W.P. No.18065/2012
17.12.2012:
Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri B. P. Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv. for the
respondents No.1 to 3.
Shri P. Kushwaha, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
Petitioner is working in the respondents establishment as a Manager on contract basis in a scheme being implemented popularly known as "MANREGA". Petitioner was transferred from Bhainsdehi to Janpad Panchayat, Betul vide order dated 12.7.2012. Petitioner joined at Betul on 13.7.2012. Grievance of the petitioner is that within a period of two months the order of transfer is cancelled and petitioner is being sent back to his original place of posting at Janpad Panchayat Bhainsdehi. Inter alia contending that executed order of transfer has been canceled without indicating any reason, the same is unsustainable, this writ petition is filed.
On notice being issued respondents have filed the return and from the return filed by respondent No.5 it is seen that petitioner was appointed on contract basis as a Manager on 21.11.2006 and was posted in Janpad Panchayat Bhainsdehi, District Betul. Vide order Annexure P/2 dated 12.7.2012 he was transferred to Betul. However, after the petitioner was transferred, it is stated that the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Betul vide Annexure 2 smt. kamni pandole vs. state R/3 informed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhainsdehi that there is no requirement of posting the petitioner in Betul, there is no work available to be allotted to the petitioner and pointing out that as an Assistant Programme Officer is already working in Janpad Panchayat, Betul, it is stated that petitioner would be excess and therefore, his transfer is not called for. While the same was pending, the Chief Executive officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhainsdehi made a communication on 27.9.2012 Annexure R/4 to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Betul indicating that due to transfer of the petitioner working of the Janpad Panchayat Bhainsdehi is suffering as no one has been posted in his place. It is stated by the respondents that taking note of the over all position and finding the posting of petitioner in Janpad Panchayat, Betul to be not necessary, the impugned action is taken.
This Court issued notices to the respondents and they were asked as to why transfer of the petitioner has been canceled. Now as indicated herein above, respondents have given reason.
Even though learned counsel for the petitioner tried to emphasize that there is no excess work in Betul, therefore, posting of the petitioner is proper, I see no reason to interfere into the matter on such consideration. Transfer of an employee and requirement of work in an office is purely an administrative function to be discharged by the executive authority. It is for the said authority to consider in what manner office is to function and what is the man power 3 smt. kamni pandole vs. state required. It is not for the High Court exercising jurisdiction in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere into such administrative matters. Interference into such administrative matters can be done only if statutory rules or regulations are shown to be violated, malafides made out or the action taken is found to be tainted with arbitrariness. In the present case, respondents have given cogent reasons and justification for their action, the justification given cannot be termed as an arbitrary warranting interference into the matter. I see no reason to interfere into the matter.
Accordingly finding no ground to interfere into the matter when the transfer is from one Panchayat to another in the same District.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra