Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Gopal Prasad Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 September, 2012
gopal prasad Vs. State 1
W.P. No.10801/2012
17/9/2012:
Shri Paritosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv. for the
respondents No. 1 to 3.
Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
Petitioner is working as a Principal, Government Kamla Nehru Girls College, Damoh and has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 13.7.2012 by which petitioner has been transferred to Govt. K. P. College Pathariya.
Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that between 2010 and till passing of the impugned order, petitioner has been transferred on about four occasions and therefore, the transfer amounts to frequent transfer which is unsustainable. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the impugned order of transfer Annexure P/1 dated 13.7.2012, petitioner's name appears at Srl. No.13 and he is shown as "Gopal Ahirwar" whereas, his correct name is "Dr. Gopal Choudhary". Contending that transfer is made by indicating the name incorrectly, transfer of the petitioner is not ordered and it is some Gopal Ahirwar who has been transferred, petitioner seeks interference into the matter.
As far as this ground is concerned, the respondents State Government has brought on record an amended order passed as contained in Annexure R/3 where clerical error of indicating the gopal prasad Vs. State 2 name of the petitioner incorrectly has been corrected on 14.8./2012 vide Annexure R/3. That being so, on such consideration merely because there is some clerical error in indicating the name of the petitioner, interference into the matter is not called for.
As far as grounds of frequent transfer is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide Annexure P/ 2 dated 19.5.2010 petitioner was transferred from Kamla Nehru Girls College, Damoh to Government College, Barghat, District Seoni. Thereafter vide Annexure P/3 dated 14.6.2010 i.e. within a period of one month, petitioner was transferred back from Barghat to Damoh. Again on 1.4.2011 vide Annexure P/4 petitioner was transferred to Govt. Naveen Arts College, Tendukheda and vide Annexure P/5 dated 7.6.2011 petitioner was transferred back to Damoh and now the petitioner is again being transferred. On such consideration, it is stated that transfer of the petitioner amounts to frequent transfer. Accordingly, on the ground of frequent transfer, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for interference into the matter.
Respondents State Government and respondent No.4 represented by Shri Vishal Dhagat have filed detailed reply with documents and have stated that petitioner has always continues to remain in Government Kamla Nehru Girls College, Damoh and whehever he was transferred from this College within a short period of time, he represented and managed his gopal prasad Vs. State 3 transfer back to the same college and now is making a complaint about frequent transfer.
Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that for the first time petitioner was transferred from Government Kamla Nehru Girls College, Damoh to Barghat vide Annexure P/2 on 19.5.2010. He represented and within a period of one month came back to his original post in Kamla Nehru Girls College, Damoh vide order Annexure P/3 passed on 14.6.2010. Accordingly it is stated that transfer which was effected vide Annexure P/2 was undone within a period of one month when Annexure P/3 was passed on 14.6.2010 posting the petitioner back to the same institute at Damoh. Thereafter when the petitioner was transferred to Tendukheda vide Annexure P/4 on 1.4.2011 again within a period of two months vide Annexure P/5 he managed to come back again to Government Kamla Nehru College. Accordingly, it is stated by the respondents that it is not a case of frequent transfers but whenever the petitioner was transferred, he managed to come back by filing representations or otherwise. By filing pay sheets of the petitioner from May 2010 continuously from Annexure R/1 to R/3, learned counsel for the respondents submits that even though petitioner was transferred he substantively continued to hold his post in Kamla Nehru Girls College, his salary was drawn from the said college and he was only shown to have been transferred without there being any change of his substantive post from the College. His lien was always maintained in Kamla Nehru Girls College from where he continuously drew the salary. Accordingly, it is a case of the gopal prasad Vs. State 4 respondents that a case of frequent transfer is not made out. Accordingly, respondents contended that it is now after a period of 7 years, that petitioner is transferred on administrative consideration and no case for interference is made out.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On a perusal of the transfer orders of the petitioner said to have been issued between the period 19.5.2010 till passing of the impugned order, it is clear that he has been transferred on four occasions. In fact there are only two transfer orders. At the first instance he was transferred from the present college to Barghat. On the second occasion he was transferred to Tendukheda. On both these occasions, within a period of one or two months of his posting, petitioner came to the same college from where he was transferred. It is therefore a case where petitioner has remained in Government Kamla Nehru College, Damoh for a long period of time and even though on two occasions he was transferred to other places but for the reason which remained unexplained and because of the favourable attitude shown by the State Government, within a short period of time he came back to his original place of posting, i.e. managed to go back to Damoh at Kamla Nehru Girls College and therefore, petitioner cannot now make a complaint of frequent transfer. The documents filed by the State Government namely, the pay bills from May 2010 to April 2011 Annexure R/1 and R/2 indicates that even though petitioner was transferred to Barghat and Tendukheda but he continued to remain in the rolls of Government Kamla Nehru College, Damoh, his salary was drawn from the said college gopal prasad Vs. State 5 and he was transferred only on papers to Barghat and Tendukheda, even though substantively, his post continued to remain in the rolls of Government Kamla Nehru College, Damoh.
Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out for interference into the matter and contention of the petitioner that he is being transferred frequently is not established from the material available on record. It is a case where petitioner has continuously remained at the same College for a period of more than 7 years and it is now that he is being transferred after such a long period of time.
Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no ground to interfere into the matter.
Petition is accordingly dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the departmental remedies available.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.m i shra