Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Vandana Dandotiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 July, 2017
WP No. 4300/2017
(Smt. Vandana Dandotiya Vs State of M.P. & Ors.)
18/07/2017
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Ms. Nidhi Patankar, learned G.A. for the
respondents/State.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10/07/2017 , whereby, the petitioner has been transferred from Project Morena (Rural) Dist. Morena to Project Kailaras, Dist. Morena.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is a woman and she has been transferred about 50 Km away from her present place of posting. Moreover, the petitioner is a contract appointee and as per the condition mentioned in the contract she cannot be transferred from one place to another which is contrary to her service condition. The petitioner has been transferred from one Project to another Project which runs contrary to clause 3 (1) of the policy dated 22/06/2017 issued by the Department. Clause 3 (1) of the policy provides that Supervisor who is posted at a particular centre for last three years or more cannot be posted in some other centre in the same project. In the instant case, the petitioner has been transferred to different project as such her transfer order is liable to be quashed. However, the petitioner has already preferred a representation dated 10/07/2017 WP No. 4300/2017 (Smt. Vandana Dandotiya Vs State of M.P. & Ors.) Annexure P/5 before the respondent No. 2 which is pending consideration and has not yet been decided. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if directions are issued to the respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner.
On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State submits that she has no objection, if directions are issued to decide the pending representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner.
In these circumstances, it is directed that the competent authority of the respondents shall decide the pending representation of the petitioner Annexure P/5 dated 10/07/2017 considering clause 3(1) of the policy dated 22/06/2017 as expeditiously as possible preferable within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order passed today. Till the representation is decided, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue at the present place of posting.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
With the aforesaid direction, the instant petition stands disposed of.
(S.A DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Durgekar*