Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anand Prakash Dixit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 W.P. No.23806/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 21th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No.23806 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ANAND PRAKASH DIXIT S/O LATE BHAGWAT
PRASAD DIXIT, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK
GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL CHHIDARI,
DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DINESH KUMAR UPADHYAY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SCHOOL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
MADHYA PRADESH, DIRECTORATE,
GAUTAM NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RITWIK PARASHAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
.........................................................................................................
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 31/08/2023 passed by Commissioner, Public Education, Madhya Pradesh, by which petitioner who is working as Middle School Teacher (Science), has been transferred from GHS Chhidari, District Tikamgarh to GMS Seelap, District Chhatarpur.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-Sep-23 10:44:57 AM 2 W.P. No.23806/20232. It is the case of petitioner that transfer of petitioner would disturb Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) as guaranteed under Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, as there will not be any Science teacher in the school. Petitioner has not made any request for his transfer. However during the course of arguments, it was fairly conceded that petitioner has already spent 7 long years of his stay at the present place of posting.
3. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State. It is submitted that transfer is an exigency of service and no one can claim that he should be posted at a particular place. So far as PTR is concerned, the same shall be maintained and in case if posting of any other teacher is required, then the same shall be done as early as possible. Petitioner has been transferred on administrative exigency and not on his request and order of transfer has been issued in a format, therefore in absence of any specific observation that transfer order has been issued on request of petitioner, any condition of transfer order shall not be construed as if the same has not been passed in administrative exigency.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is fairly conceded by counsel for petitioner that petitioner has spent more than 7 years of his stay at the present place of posting.
6. So far as disturbance of PTR is concerned, it is suffice to mention here that it is the bounded duty of the State to maintain PTR and transfer order of petitioner cannot be quashed merely on the ground that it would disturb the PTR. If respondents are of the view that posting of any other teacher is required to maintain PTR, then the same shall be done in accordance with law without any further delay. Petitioner has not Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-Sep-23 10:44:57 AM 3 W.P. No.23806/2023 alleged any malafides against any of the Authorities. Transfer is an exigency of service and no one can claim that he should be posted at a particular place.
7. At this stage, it is submitted by counsel for 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 petitioner may be kept in abeyance.
8. Considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioner.
9. 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.
10. Since petitioner has not joined at the transferred place, therefore, at present, no direction can be issued to respondents to decide the representation. However, it is made clear that petitioner after submitting his joining may file an application for urgent hearing of his representation and if that is filed then respondents shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law without getting influenced or prejudiced by this order.
11. With aforesaid observation, petition is finally disposed of.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Shubhankar Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-Sep-23 10:44:57 AM