Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ms. Sheetal Bhalavi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2019
1 WP-5461-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-5461-2019
(MS. SHEETAL BHALAVI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
3
Jabalpur, Dated : 28-03-2019
Mr. K.C. Ghildiyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.K. Pillai, Government Advocate for the State.
Mr. M.K. Mishra, Advocate for the respondent No.4.
Heard.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven working days, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed without reference to the Bench.
Learned Government Advocate undertakes to file response within 10 days.
Parties are also heard on the question of interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is substantively holding the post of Chief Municipal Officer. By order dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure-P/3) he is transferred from Lavkush Nagar (Chhatarpur) to Naigarhi (Rewa) and in lieu thereof respondent No.4, a Revenue Sub-Inspector was transferred to work as In-charge, CMO which is bad in law. Mr. Ghildiyal further submits that said transfer order stood modified vide order dated 09.03.2019 (Annexure-P/4), whereby petitioner is now transferred as Assistant Commissioner at Municipal Corporation, Rewa. The bone of contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner a Substantive Officer cannot be substituted by a Revenue Sub-Inspector. Reliance is placed on a similar order passed by this Court dated 25.02.2019, in WP-3351-2019 (Annexure-P/6).
Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that there were serious complaints against the petitioner regarding her performance at the present place of posting. Petitioner has already been relieved. Private respondent has already joined. The place from where private respondent has Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 28/03/2019 16:50:48 2 WP-5461-2019 been brought is also occupied. Section 89 of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 is relied upon to contend that posting of respondent No.4 is in consonance with this provision.
In prima facie opinion of this Court, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent No.4 appears to be misconceived. Section 89 makes it clear that if no member of service is available for appointment, the State Government may appoint any person of same class qualified to be a member of such service. Prima facie, the petitioner was very much available and, therefore, Section 89 aforesaid cannot be pressed into service.
As noticed, in a similar matter i.e., WP-3351-2019 this Court has stayed a similar transfer order. Accordingly, by maintaining parity till next date of hearing the effect and operation of orders dated 03.03.2019 (Annexure-P/3) and 09.03.2019 (Annexure-P/4) shall remain stayed. The respondents shall permit the petitioner to perform her duties at the office of respondent No.3.
List this matter after 10 days in order to hear the Government on the question of interim relief alongwith WP-3351-2019.
C.C. as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE s@if Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 28/03/2019 16:50:48