Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Kumar Khamparia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 July, 2012
23.07.2012.
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal for the petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State. Petitioner is working as Revenue Inspector and is posted in Collectorate, Jabalpur. Vide order-dated 15.7.2012, petitioner has been transferred as Revenue Inspector, Chhatarpur and challenge is made to the aforesaid order of transfer.
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, invites my attention of the provision of sections 105 and 106, of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 and argues that the post of Collector is formed circle-wise and appointment of Revenue Inspector is made by the Collector, and as a Revenue Inspector is a District Cadre post, transfer of a Revenue Inspector from one district to another is not permissible. Accordingly, the first ground canvassed is that the transfer of the petitioner from one district to another is not permissible in view of the provision of sections 105 and 106 of the Code.
That apart, pointing out various difficulties and breach of transfer policy in transferring the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, points out that even though the cadre of a Revenue Inspector is a District Cadre, but transfer of the petitioner out of the district is not prohibited and on such transfer petitioner carries with him his seniority and as there is no adverse affect in service condition of the petitioner, the transfer is proper and the same does not call for any interference.
2The question as to whether a District Cadre employee can be transferred from one district to another has been considered recently by a Bench of this Court in the case of Awadesh Kumar Shrivastava and another Vs. State of MP and others, 2012 (2) MPHT 277. In the said case also, similar arguments were advanced with regard to adverse affect on the seniority when an employee holding a District Cadre post is transferred from one district to another and after taking note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Dutta and another [1991(1) SCC 505] the similar arguments were rejected. In the light of the law laid down by a Bench of this Court in the case of Awadesh Kumar Shrivastava (supra), I am not inclined to interfere into the matter on the grounds raised by Shri K.C. Ghildiyal.
That apart, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dhaniram Ahirwar and another Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and another, 1995 MPLJ 545, has considered similar questions. In the case of Dhaniram Ahirwar (supra), the employees were working in the establishment of a District and Sessions Judge and they were transferred from one District to another. Similar orders of transfer were challenged on the ground that a District Cadre employee working in the District Judiciary cannot be transferred from his parent district to any other district. The Division Bench rejected similar arguments and held that transfer is an incident of service and in the absence of any statutory provision prohibiting transfer, an employee can be transferred from one place to another and 3 merely because his seniority is maintained district wise, that does not mean that he cannot be transferred. It has been held by the Division Bench that on such transfer, the employee carries with him his seniority, and as there is no adverse affect on the seniority, it has been held that the transfer is not illegal.
Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Dhaniram Ahirwar (supra) and a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Awadesh Kumar Shrivastava (supra), I see no ground to interfere on the grounds raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.
As far as other grounds are concerned, they are the personal inconveniences of the petitioner pertaining to education of his children so also breach of transfer policy.
On the ground of personal inconveniences of an employee or breach of transfer policy, judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not permissible as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas [1993(4) SCC 357], and by a Division Bench of the High Court in the case of R.S. Choudhary Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [ILR 2007 MP 1329].
Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, finding no ground to interfere into an administrative order of transfer, petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the departmental remedies available.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-