Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhupat Singh Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2015
1
W.P. No.12763/2015
06.08.2015
Shri Kamal Singh Baghel learned counsel for
the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission and
interim relief.
The petitioner has filed this petition being
aggrieved by order dated 5.06.2015 by which the
petitioner, who is working as an Assistant Teacher
at Government Primary School, Barbaspur, District
Umaria has been transferred to Primary School Tali
in the same district.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the strength of the student is 85 and after the
transfer of the petitioner only one teacher remains
in the school which is contrary to the policy of the
State. It is stated that in view of the strength of
the students atleast two teachers are required to
be posted in the school but the authorities, without
looking into this aspect, has transferred the
petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner
has also stated that the petitioner's wife is
suffering from kidney problem and is required to
undertake treatment at Nagpur and, therefore, the
impugned order of transfer be stayed. The learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that in
other petitions assailing order of transfer, i.e. W.P
2
W.P. No.12763/2015
Nos.8446/2015 and 10836/2015, this Court while
directing the authorities to consider the
representation of the petitioner against the order
of transfer, have also ordered that the petitioners'
therein would be allowed to continue at their place
of posting till decision of their representations.
Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, it is observed that the petitioner has
assailed the order on the ground of violation of
the transfer policy and observed that the Division
Bench of this Court in the case R.S. Choudhary
Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in I.L.R. [2007]
1329, has held that in cases where there is an
allegation of violation of the transfer policy, the
appropriate remedy to the petitioner is to approach
the respondents/ authorities by filing the
representation before the appropriate authority.
I am of the considered opinion that the observations made by this Court in some cases regarding stay of the order of transfer till the decision of the representation is not a binding precedent nor can the petitioner ask for an identical order on the principle of parity as such an interim order is passed by the court depending upon the peculiar and different facts of each case and not as a general rule. In the instant case, the 3 W.P. No.12763/2015 petitioner has assailed the order of transfer only on the ground of violation of the transfer policy and no other mitigating circumstances have been pointed out to compel this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to grant any interim relief while disposing of this petition.
In the present case, except for making out a case of breach of policy, no other ground has been pointed out by the petitioner on the basis of which an interim order in favour of the petitioner can be passed permitting him to continue at the present place of posting till decision of the representation. The illness of the petitioner's wife is also no ground to stay the impugned order of transfer as the petitioner's wife is undergoing treatment in Nagpur and the petitioner can take his wife for treatment from his transferred place of posting also i.e. Tali, District Umaria.
In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner approaches the respondent authorities by filing a fresh representation within fifteen days from today alongwith a certified copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the 4 W.P. No.12763/2015 representation filed by the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with the transfer policy preferably within a period of six weeks thereafter. The petitioner would also be at liberty to move an application seeking stay of the order of transfer under para 14 of the transfer policy.
It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore the authority would be at liberty to examine the matter keeping all facts and facets into consideration and thereafter either accept or reject the representation by passing a reasoned order.
With the aforesaid direction, the petition, filed by the petitioner, stands disposed of.
C.C as per rules.
( R. S. JHA ) JUDGE mms/-