Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Suman Singh vs State Of M.P. on 20 October, 2016
W.P.No.5365/2008 1
(Smt. Suman Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
20.10.2016
Shri Pratip Visoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri C.R.Roman, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents
No.1 and 2.
Shri Anand Purohit, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by rejection of her case for absorption at Bhind on account of non- availability of post, whereas it is submitted by the petitioner that respondent No.4 was given benefit of this absorption though she only fulfilled one criteria of being woman, whereas petitioner fulfilled two criteria, namely that of being woman and another of her husband being posted as Sahayak Shikshak at Bhind. Attention has been drawn to the circular of School Education Department dated 28.6.2008 wherein chronological order has been assigned to consider the cases of voluntary transfer and at first number those cases are placed where either of the spouse suffers from cancer, brain tumor, kidney transplant, open heart or bypass surgery and paralysis etc. Second category is for physically challenged persons having disability of more than 40%. Third category is where both the husband and wife are in government service or in the service of local body and are required to be posted at one place. Fourth category is for widow and deserted women and in the fifth category other women have been given place. It is the case of the petitioner that she fulfills criteria No.3 and criteria No.5 and respondent No.4 only fulfilled one criteria, and therefore, she should have been considered for posting at Bhind giving priority over the case of respondent No.4.
Respondents have filed their return and have submitted that respondent No.4 is senior to the petitioner, and therefore, she has been given preference over the petitioner.
W.P.No.5365/2008 2As far as policy is concerned, there is no mention of aspect of seniority, except where under the same category there are more than one application, the priority is to be given to the senior person. It is the case of the petitioner that she was falling in the third category above the fifth category in relation to other women under which respondent No.4 has been considered, and therefore, since respondent No.4 had no claim under category No.3, she should not have been posted at Bhind in preference to the petitioner. It is also submitted that from the date of initial appointment petitioner is senior to respondent No.4 inasmuch as petitioner was appointed in the year 2001 whereas respondent No.4 was given appointment in the year 2003.
At this distance of time, instead of upsetting the settled position which is existing for the last eight years, it will be proper to issue directions to respondent No.2 to consider the case of transfer of the petitioner from Lahar to Bhind where her husband is already working as Adhyapak. In case petitioner makes a fresh representation within a period of 15 days from today alongwith certified copy of the order passed today, then Collector shall pass necessary order within further period of two months taking into consideration hardship and genuineness of the claim of the petitioner.
Petition is disposed of.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge ms/-