ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 12.6.2019 passed by the respondent No.1 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Veterinary Hospital, Deenpura, District Bhind to Veterinary Hospital, Lakhanvas, Tahsil Byavra, District Rajgarh.

2. Challenging the order passed by the respondents, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the District President of Madhya Pradesh Sahayak Pashu Chikitsa Kshetra Adhikari Sangh, District Bhind and, therefore, he may be exempted from transfer in view of clause 11.17 of the transfer policy. It is further submitted that the daughter of the petitioner is student of Class 11th whereas the son of the petitioner is also a student of High School and the wife of the petitioner is a Government employee serving as Adhyapika in Government Middle School, Ratva, Mow District Bhind, therefore, the transfer of the petitioner in mid session would cause personal inconvenience. The petitioner has made a representation, however, the said representation has not been decided so far.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. So far as the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the President of Madhya Pradesh Sahayak Pashu Chikitsa Kshetra Adhikari Sangh, District Bhind is concerned, the petitioner has not clarified that whether he is an elected office bearer or has been nominated as office bearer.

5. Clause 11.17 of the transfer policy reads as under:-

^^11-17 jkT; 'kklu ls i=kpkj djus dh ekU;rk ÁkIr deZpkjh laxBuksa ds Áns'k@laHkkx@ftyk@rglhy@fodkl [k.M 'kk[kk ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa ;Fkk&v/;{k@lfpo@dks"kk/;{k dks in ij fu;qfDr mijkar LFkkukarj.k ls nks inkof/k ds fy;s vFkkZr 4 o"kZ rd dh lkekU;r% NwV ÁkIr gksxhA ;g lqfo/kk mlds iwjs lsokdky esa fu;ekuqlkj nks inkof/k ds fy;s feysxhA 4 o"kZ ls vf/kd inLFkkiuk vof/k iw.kZ gksus ij Á'kkldh; vko';drk vuqlkj ,sls inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks Hkh LFkkukarfjr fd;k tk ldsxkA laxBu ds inksa esa fu;qfDr dh iwoZ lwpuk ds laca/k esa l{ke Ákf/kdkjh dh larqf"V dk vk/kkj eq[; gksxkA bl laca/k esa l{ke 'kklu ds i= Øekad ,Q 10&6@05@1&15d& fnukad 24 vÁSy] 2006 ds Áko/kkuksa dk voyksdu djsa] ftlesa Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd ekU;rk ÁkIr deZpkjh laxBuksa }kjk fuokZpu ds i'pkr~ fuokZfpr inkf/kdkfj;sa dh lwph muds dk;Zdky lfgr lacaf/kr dysDVj dks nh tk;sxhA blds lkFk&lkFk lacaf/kr foHkkx Áeq[k] tgka os dk;Zjr gksa rFkk lkekU; Á'kklu foHkkx ¼deZpkjh dY;k.k Ádks"B½ dks fnukad 30 vÁSy dh fLFkfr esa lkSai nh xbZ gks] mUgha inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks LFkkukarj.k ls NwV dk ykHk fn;k tkuk pkfg,A**

Clause 11.17 of the transfer policy provides that the office bearer would generally get an exemption from transfer for two tenure i.e. four years and after completing the tenure of four years, they can be transferred and it is also specifically mentioned in this clause that only those office bearers who have been elected would be entitled for exemption from transfer. The petitioner has not clarified as to whether he is an elected or nominated office bearer. Further the petitioner has not clarified the date from which the petitioner is working at the present place of transfer. The clause 11.17 of the transfer policy is not an absolute clause and the exemption from transfer would be available on satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in the said clause. In absence of any averment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for exemption from his transfer on the ground of office bearer.

6. So far as the submission that the wife of the petitioner is also posted in same district is concerned, clause 11.9 of the transfer policy reads as under:-

^^11-9 ifr&iRuh ds Lo;a ds O;; ij ,d gh lkFk inLFkkiuk ds fy, vkosnu i= ÁkIr gksus ij LFkkukarj.k fd;k tk ldsxk] ijUrq inLFkkiuk dk LFkku Á'kkldh; vko';drk ds vuq:i fu/kkZfjr gksxkA bldk vk'k; ;g ugha gS fd ifr@iRuh ;fn ,d gh ftys@eq[;ky; eas dk;Zjr gksa rks mudk LFkkukUrj.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk