Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghvendra Singh Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 4 September, 2017
1
W.P. No.5684/2017
(Raghvendra Singh Vs State of M.P. & others)
04/09/2017
Shri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Singhal, learned Government
Advocate for the respondents/State.
In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 21/08/2017 passed by respondent No.3 and 5 whereby representation preferred by the petitioner in the light of directions issued by this Court in WP No. 4618/2017 (s) and RP No. 464/2017 has been turned down on the findings which are totally perverse and based on the extraneous consideration.
Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation in WP No. 4618/2017 had assailed the impugned transfer order dated 26/07/2017 passed by the Collector, Morena on the ground that he is elected President of Madhya Pradesh Patwari Sangh for Jaura District Morena (M.P.). According to the transfer policy Para 8.19 provides that protection has been granted to the officer bearer for four years, therefore, the petitioner can not be transferred. This Court while disposing WP No. 4618/2017 had directed the petitioner to move a fresh representation before the concerned authorities within seven days,which shall be decided by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of 30 days therefrom. Now, respondent No.3 after considering the representation filed by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 21/08/2017 (Annexure P-
1) has rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the 2 W.P. No.5684/2017 (Raghvendra Singh Vs State of M.P. & others) ground that there was no information with regard to the petitioner having been elected as President of Union on the date of transfer as well as when representation was taken up for consideration. As per para 8.6 of the transfer policy, the petitioner can be transferred after completion of three years of service at one place.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order rejecting the representation is against the (Supra) of the order dated 26/07/2017 and 16/07/2017 and also against the transfer policy, as such the same deserves to be set-aside. It is further contended that the Collector has not taken into consideration the fact that officer bearer of Union has already informed the then Collector with regard to such election in the year 2015 itself.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that transfer policy is merely guidelines. The present decision has been made due to administrative exigency and looking to the fact that there is acute shortage of Patwari in Porsa, therefore, the petitioner has been transferred.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties It is well settled in law that transfer is an incidence of service which employee should be posted where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Until and unless the transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of any statutory provision, the Court cannot interfere with the order of 3 W.P. No.5684/2017 (Raghvendra Singh Vs State of M.P. & others) transfer. (See Union of India and others Vs S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357). Similarly in Public Services Tribunal Bar Association Vs State of U.P and another (2003) 4 SCC 104) once again dealing with the scope of judicial review in the matter of transfer. Supreme Court reiterated that transfer is an incidence of service and normally should not be interfered with by the Court. The transfer made contrary to policy can also not be interfered with. (See: Shilpi Bose and others Vs State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 532). If any administrative guidelines regarding transfer of an employee are violated, at the best the same confers the right on the employee to approach the higher authorities for redressal of his grievance.
However, the impugned order of transfer has neither been passed in violation of any statutory provision nor the same suffers from the vice of malafide.
Accordingly, no interference is required in the matter. The writ petition being bereft of merits and substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is free to approach again before the Collector with regard to immunity from transfer of the officer bearer of Union after joining at the new place of posting.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Prachi*