Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 8 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 28554 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
VIJAY SONI S/O SHRI KANTILAL SONI, AGED ABOUT 54
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O 69, SATULAL
COLONY JOBAT DISTT. ALIRAJPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS. MANJULA MUKATI WITH MS.KIRTI SABOO - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
DEVELOPEMENT DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DEPUTY SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NATIONAL
LIVELIHOOLD MISSION ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM MISSION
COORDINATOR JILA PANCHAYAT ALIRAJPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. PRANJALI YAJURVEDI - P.L.)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 08-11-2023 17:44:10 2 the petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of order dated 9/10/2023 passed by respondent No.1 whereby the representation of the petitioner against the transfer order dated 3/7/2023 has been rejected.
2. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.15631/2023 challenging the validity of the transfer whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Alirajpur to Neemuch. The said petition was disposed off with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within period of 4 weeks' from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Till the representation is decided the petitioner was allowed to continue at present place of posting i.e at Alirajpur. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another petition W.P.No.26665/2023 challenging the order dated 11.10.2023 whereby the petitioner was released to join at the transfer place on the ground that the petitioner has not been supplied copy of the order of the rejection of his representation. The said petition was disposed off with a direction to Chief Executive Officer, M.P. Rajya Gramin Ajivika Mission, Bhopal to supply copy of the order dated 9/10/2023 by which representation of the petitioner was rejected. In compliance to the said order, copy of the rejection order dated 9/10/2023 has been supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the said order in the present petition.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on contract basis on the post of Sankul Samanvayak with the respondents and his services are non transferable. In support of his submission, counsel for the petitioner referred Clause 9.1 of the circular/order dated 24/2/2020 passed by Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Government of M.P. It is argued that the representation of similarly situated employees have been considered and the respondents have not mentioned any specific reasons for Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 08-11-2023 17:44:10 3 transfer of the petitioner.
4. Counsel for the State supported the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner has not raised the aforesaid point before the competent authority in the representation and further the petitioner has been transferred on administrative ground as the petitioner is in district Alirajpur since 2012.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the petition. The clause 9.1 of the circular/order dated 24/2/2020 has been considered by the Division Bench in the case of Seema Pasi Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.(W.A. No.281/2021). The relevant para 8 of the said order reads as under:-
8.On a bare perusal of the of the impugned order of transfer, it is graphically clear that the transfer has been issued in reference to clause 9.1 of the Circular dated 24/2/2020 passed by the Panchayat&Rural Development Department, Govt. of M.P. The said circular was issued in respect of delegation of adminstrative and financial powers under the M.P. Rajya Grasmin Aajevika Mission by superseding all previous circulars. As per clause 9.1 of the said Circular, it is provided that the services of contractual employees are meant for a specific place and for specific woks and, therefore, the services are not transferrable. However, considering the administrative arrangements in special circumstances, services of such employees can be transferred.
6. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the aforesaid points were not raised before the respondent No.1 in the representation. Apart from that, as per the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Seema Pasi (supra), clause 9.1 of the said circular has been interpreted and it has been held that the services of contractual employees are meant for specific place and for specific works and, therefore, services are non transferable, however, considering the administrative arrangement in special circumstances, services of said employees Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 08-11-2023 17:44:10 4 can be transferred. In the present case while considering the representation of the petitioner, the respondent No.1 has mentioned that the petitioner has remained at present place of posting since 2012 and the petitioner has been transferred on administrative ground. The law regarding interference in the transfer petition is well settled that transfer is an incident of service and the Courts cannot interfere with the transfer order in violation of the transfer policy.
7. Law relating to scope of interference in the transfer matter is no longer res integra, as held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Gujrat Electricity Board and another vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, (1989) 2 SCC 602; Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 and the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S. Choudhary vs. State of M.P. and others, 2007(2) ILR MP Series 1329 , the transfer is an incidence of service and the transfer order can only be interfered by the Courts of law if the transfer is issued in violation of the statutory rules or the order suffers from malafide exercise of power.
8. Since the respondents have passed a detailed order rejecting the representation of the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the administrative matter. The petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant petition, the petitioner could not establish any breach of statutory rule or a case of malafide.
9. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE Pramod Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 08-11-2023 17:44:10 5 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 08-11-2023 17:44:10