Madhya Pradesh High Court
R.K. Patkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 14 May, 2013
Writ Petition No.11670/2012 (S)
(R.K.Patkar ..Vs. ..State of M.P. & others)
14-05-2013
Shri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.M.Lal. Learned G.A. for the State/respondents.
I.A.No. 13439/2012 filed by the petitioner is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and the petitioner is permitted to make necessary amendments in Court itself.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 13.7.2012 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Kuwan to Umariapan.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of transfer has been passed by the respondent No.3-Divisional Forest Officer. It is further submitted that the Divisional Forest Officer has no authority to shift the petitioner even within the forest division. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the the orders dated 22.3.2010 and 7.4.2010 (Annexures P-4 and P-6 respectively). It is also urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be granted liberty to file a representation and the competent authority may be directed to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer fairly submitted that the representation which may be filed by the petitioner shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
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 mala fide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. [See: Union of India and Others v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357] Similarly in Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. 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. Transfer made contrary to policy can also not be interfered with. [See: Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1991 SC 532] . If any administrative guidelines regarding transfer of an employee are violated, at best the same confers the right on the employee to approach the higher authorities for redressal of their grievance. The impugned order of transfer has neither been passed in violation of any statutory provisions nor the same suffers from the vice of mala fide.
However, the instant petition is disposed of with the direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation which may be filed by the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Needless to state, the competent authority shall pass a speaking order on the representation filed by the petitioner and shall communicate the same to the petitioner.
C.C. as per rules.
(R.S.Jha) Judge mct