Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Deep Singh vs Rajmata Vijayraje Scindia Krishi ... on 21 August, 2023

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak

                                    1
 IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT GWALIOR
                             BEFORE
               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                      ON THE 21 st OF AUGUST, 2023
                    WRIT PETITION No. 20278 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
DEEP SINGH S/O LATE SHRI VIJAY SINGH, AGED ABOUT
56    YEARS, OCCUPATION: SCIENTIST LAKSHYA
MEDIACAL STORE NAKA CHANDRAVADNI LASHKAR
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI S.K. SHARMA-ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    RAJMATA    VIJAYRAJE  SCINDIA   KRISHI
      VISHWAVIDYALAYA   THROUGH   ITS  VICE
      CHANCELLOR RACE COURSE ROAD NEAR MELA
      GROUND GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    D E A N RAJMATA VIJAYRAJE SCINDIA KRISHI
      VISHWAVIDYALAYA RACE COURSE ROAD, NEAR
      MELA GROUND, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.K. MISHRA-ADVOCATE)

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

"7(i) That, the impugned order dated 01.08.2023 and order of transfer and relieving dated 06.07.2023 & 07.07.2023 Annexure P/1 & P/2 and may kindly be quashed.
(ii) That heavy cost be imposed on the respondent No.1 and 2 for playing mischief and passing order in malafide manner 2 against the petitioner.
(iii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, with cost of the petition."

2 . Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is working as Senior Scientist (Agronomy) in Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwavidyalaya (respondent No.1 herein) and he is differently abled to the extent of 50%. In 2016 he was appointed vide order dated 02.08.2016 (Annexure R/5) in unreserved category and since then he is working at Gwalior. Earlier vide order dated 6.7.2023 he was transferred from Gwalior to Khandwa. He preferred a writ petition before this Court challenging his transfer order vide W.P. No.16145/2023 and vide order dated 27.07.2023 this petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to decide his representation filed by him and direction was given not to be relieved, if not yet relieved. It appears that he was earlier relieved by the respondents, therefore, a review petition was preferred vide R.P. No.802/2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 3.8.2023. It appears that before that order in review, impugned order dated 1.8.2023 was passed in which representation of petitioner was considered, and therefore, direction was given to join at G.M. Agriculture College Khandwa in pursuance to transfer order dated 6.7.2023. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

3. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that he is differently abled to the extent of 50% and without any assistance he cannot perform his daily routine. His wife is working in Government School as Teacher and he has to look after his old aged mother, therefore, he is required to stay at Gwalior. It is further submitted that petitioner helped another employee Ms. Ekta Joshi when she was transferred to Khandwa but he paid the price for that 3 because now she has been transferred to Mandsaur and in her place petitioner has been transferred at Khandwa. He pleads malafide.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner placed the order dated 27.04.2018 passed in W.P. No.148/2017 (Sudhanshu Tripathi vs. Bank of India & ors.) passed by coordinate Bench (Indore) whereby case of a similarly placed employee was considered and his transfer order was quashed. He seeks parity.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State opposed the prayer. According to him, petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Professor/Scientist (Agronomy) at Ganj Basoda under Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya. Till 2015 he worked there and thereafter he came on deputation at respondent No.1/University. Later on vide order dated 27.02.2007 he was appointed on 2.8.2016 (Annexure R/5) under unreserved (physically handicapped) category at the College of Agriculture Gwalior on Weed Science. He refers Clause 9 of the appointment order which stipulates that petitioner can be appointed to the post of Senior Scientist (Agromony) on transfer to any other campus/place under jurisdiction of responent No.1/University. It is further submitted that vide order dated 12.04.2023 (Annexure R/4) of Principal Secretary of State Government for social justice and Divyangjan Sashaktikaran Department, directions have been given to all Divyangjan to get certificate from competent medical officers from UDID portal. Therefore, petitioner has admittedly not obtained such certificate.

6. Even otherwise, petitioner has stayed more than 7 years at present place of posting and not only petitioner but wife of his younger brother namely Rajni Sasode is also working as Scientist (Pathologist), therefore, his younger brother, his wife as well as wife of petitioner can take care of elder member of the family. So far as limitations of petitioner are concerned, he himself regularly 4 attends the college at Gwalior which is a two floor building without any elevators and he regularly performs duty at Gwalior. Not only this respondent refers different tour programs of petitioner which are attached with the reply to demonstrate that he regularly visits all over India to attend different conferences. Therefore, it is not the case where he is confined or limits his movement. His representation was considered in detail by the concerned authority and thereafter impugned order has been passed.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto.

8. This is a case where petitioner who was working as Scientific Officer/Assistant Professor (Agronomy) since 2016 has been transferred as Assistant Professor (Agronomy) at Khandwa where Professor of Agronomy is required. As per the requisition sent by Dean of College of Agriculture on 13.06.2023 (Annexure (R/1), earlier one Assistant Professor Ms. Ekta Joshi was transferred but because of her family condition and request for appointment at a place near to Rajasthan, she was transferred to Agriculture College Mandsaur and in her place one Scientist (Agronomy) was to be posted, therefore, petitioner is being transferred. Therefore, any plea of malafide cannot be sustained because petitioner was transferred later on, and therefore, he was not the target as tried to be demonstrated by the counsel for petitioner. Therefore, plea of malafide raised by petitioner stands misconceived.

9. Transfer is an incident of service. No one much less petitioner has any vested right to be posted at a particular place of posting. It is well settled in law that employer is the best judge to organize its work force and it is also well settled in law that a transfer order cannot be subjected to judicial review unless 5 and until same is found to be influenced by malafide or arbitrary exercise of powers which petitioner fails to do so. Concept of equality as enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, has no application to the cases of transfers.

10. On close scrutiny of impugned order dated 1.8.2023, it appears that his family is well settled and he is a Class 1 officer with sufficient resources to his credit. When after 7 years petitioner is being transferred to a place where his requirement as Assistant Professor (Agronomy) is the most, therefore, shirking away from the said responsibility is not expected of an Government employee.

11. So far as his limitations are concerned, on his own accord it appears that he regularly represented in National Conferences at far flung areas of the country and regularly working at Gwalior. Therefore, it is not a case where his limitations are coming in his way to perform duties. He already stayed more than 7 years at Gwalior. Therefore, he has to move as it is time to perform duties at some different place.

12. In the cumulative analysis, in absence of any plea of malafide being established or in absence of any violation of any statute, scope of interference in the matter of transfer is very limited.

13. Resultantly, petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed. Petitioner has to join at his transferred place of posting immediately.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Van VANDANA VERMA 2023.08.21 19:14:51 -07'00'