Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Singh Raghuvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 August, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 W.P. No.20957/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 23rd OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No.20957 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
DEVENDRA SINGH RAGHUVANSHI W/O SHRI
RAGGHU SINGH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK POSTED
GOVT. EPES MIDDLE SCHOOL MAHATPUR
TEHSIL MULTAI DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI JITENDRA ARYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SCHOOL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THROUGH THE
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
THROUGH COMMISSIONER DIRECTORATE
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION GAUTAM NAGAR
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER BETUL
DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SWAPNIL GANGULY - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
.........................................................................................................
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 10/08/2023, by which petitioner who is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 24-Aug-23 6:53:06 PM 2 W.P. No.20957/2023 working as Primary Teacher has been transferred from EPES-MS Mahatpur to EPES-NMS Jhunkari, District Betul.
2. It is fairly conceded by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has already spent more than five years of her stay at the present place of posting. However, only contention of counsel for petitioner is that only one teacher of English would be left after transfer of petitioner and petitioner had undergone heart operation in the year 2020.
3. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State. It is submitted that it is clear from impugned order that petitioner was posted in Mahatpur but petitioner has not disclosed her place of residence in cause title. Petitioner has filed her Coronary Angiography Report as Annexure-P/7 and according to the same, her residential address has been shown as Chhindi, Tehsil Multai, District Betul. It is submitted that although petitioner has claimed that she had undergone a heart operation but she has not filed any document to show that she had undergone angioplasty or open heart or by-pass and Coronary Angiography Report cannot be said to be a heart operation. It is further submitted that when she can attend her duties by staying in village Chhindi, then it is clear that her contention that she is physically unfit to join at her transferred place, is false and baseless.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Transfer is an exigency of service and no one can claim that he/she should be posted at a particular place. So far as Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) is concerned, it is for the respondents to ensure that the same is not disturbed. Therefore, it is directed that respondents shall ensure that PTR is not disturbed and someone must be posted in place of petitioner as early as possible.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 24-Aug-23 6:53:06 PM 3 W.P. No.20957/20236. So far as petitioner is concerned, she has already spent more than five years of her stay at the present place of posting.
7. So far as personal difficulties of an employee is concerned, it is sufficient to mention that this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot look into the same and it is for employer to consider the personal difficulties of its employees.
8. At this stage, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has made a representation which has not been decided so far, therefore respondents may be directed to decide the same and till then transfer order of the petitioner may be kept in abeyance.
9. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.
10. A Division Bench of the Court in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR 2015 MP 2556 has held that mere filing of a representation does not give rise to a vested right and it is the prerogative of the employer to stay or not to stay the transfer order during the pendency of the representation. In case if the transfer order is not stayed by the employer then it has to be executed by the employee. Accordingly, it was held that in absence of any vested right, the High Court should not pass an interim order thereby staying the execution of transfer.
11. Since petitioner has not joined at the transferred place, therefore, at present, no direction can be issued to the respondents to decide the representation. However, it is made clear that the petitioner after submitting her joining may file an application for urgent hearing of her representation and if that is filed then the respondents shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law without getting influenced or prejudiced by this order.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 24-Aug-23 6:53:06 PM 4 W.P. No.20957/202312. With aforesaid observation, petition is finally disposed of.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Shubhankar Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 24-Aug-23 6:53:06 PM