Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhoram Markam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 2012
Madhoram Markam vs. state
W.P. No.14724/2012
11/09/12
Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv. for the
respondents on advance notice.
Petitioner is working as a Panchayat Secretary in Village Panchayat, Baniyatara, Janpad Panchayat, Mandla and by the impugned order dated 12.7.2012 he has been transferred to Village Panchayat Anjaniya, Janpad Panchayat Bichhiya. It is stated that petitioner is seriously ill and is taking treatment in the District Hospital at Mandla. It is further stated that petitioner's wife is also suffering from various ailment and looking to all these factors the Gram Panchayat in question has recommended for cancelling the transfer of the petitioner vide Annexure P/2. Accordingly, contending that due to the aforesaid reason, petitioner should not be transferred, this writ petition is filed. That apart, pointing out violation of transfer policy Annexure P/4 dated 31.3.2012 in transferring the petitioner, i.e. transfer is in excess to the quota prescribed in the transfer policy and various grounds with regard to consent of the employee concerned has not be adhere to are also raised and this writ petition has been filed seeking interference into the matter.
That apart, inviting my attention to an order passed on 16.8.2012 in W.P. No.12483/2012 (s) it is stated that under similar circumstances even though a Bench of this Court did not interfere with the order of transfer on merits but directed for deciding the representation and till then order was directed not to be given effect to. Accordingly on the Madhoram Markam vs. state aforesaid contention, prayer made is that the transfer order be quashed.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents refutes the aforesaid and argued that petitioner is a Panchayat Secretary and has only been transferred from one Panchayat to another within the same district and merely because there are certain personal inconveniences of the petitioner or the transfer policy is violated no interference can be made, it is argued by him that interference into an administrative order of transfer cannot be made by this Court in view of the law laid down in the case of Union of India and others Vs. S. L. Abbas (1993)4 SCC 357, so also in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of R. S. Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P. - ILR 2007 MP1329.
With regard to parity claimed on the basis of order passed in W.P. No.12483/2012 (s), Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents points out that once this Court finds that interference into the order is not be made on the merits and thereafter when a order is passed granting liberty to an employee to represent and till decision he is permitted to work, it creates lots of administrative difficulty to the authority concerned in as much as the chain of transfer is disturbed and employees who have already joined in particular transferred place are put to serious inconveniences. It is very difficult to permit two persons to work at the same place. Accordingly he submits that once the petitioner's case is found to be meritless, interim order of permitting the employee to work till his representation is not decided be not be passed.
Madhoram Markam vs. state Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is clear that transfer is not challenged on the ground of any statutory rules or regulations being violated or any malafide made out. Petitioner is a Panchayat Secretary and in accordance to the policies and decision of the State to bring about the better administration in the panchayat system, secretaries of the panchayat who have continued to remain in one place for a long period of time, which is detrimental to the interest of Panchayat are transferred to another panchayat. For doing so, a policy decision has been taken by the State Government, the same cannot be interferred with by this Court until and unless any statutory provisions or rules are shown to be violated. In the present case no statutory rules or regulations are shown to be violated nor any malafide made out. Merely because certain personal inconveniences are there to the petitioner or that the transfer is contrary to the transfer policy, judicial review of an administrative order is not permissible in view of the law laid down in the case of S. L. Abbas (supra) and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of R. S. Chaudhary (supra).
Finally the prayer made for seeking parity in the matter of deciding the representation and permitting the petitioner to work till the representation is decided has to be considered, even though a Bench of this Court in various cases has passed such an order but it is seen that same prayer is made in each and every case. Shri Rajesh Tiwari is right in contending that serious administrative difficulties occurs in permitting a employee to work pending decision on his Madhoram Markam vs. state representation when the other employee who is posted in place of the petitioner is relieved and has joined. Once this Court comes to the conclusion that petitioner is not entitled to any relief or the transfer is not to be interfered with, there is no justification in staying the transfer order merely because representation is pending. I am not inclined to pass such an order in the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly when petitioner is only transferred from one Panchayat to another in the same District, a direction can be given only in very rare case where the situation so warrants not as a routine in every case.
Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the department remedies available.
With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra