The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of a public servant from a significant post can be prejudicial to the public interest if the successor is not suitable for the post, as established in N. K. Singh vs. Union of India and ors. (1994) 6 SCC 98.

ORDER SUJOY PAUL, J. – The core issue raised in this intra Court appeal is whether the order dated 18-3-2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 2 is legal and justifiable whereby the appellant who was holding the substantive post of Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Barwaha, District Khargone is transferred to the post of Dy. Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam, Ratlam and in-lieu thereof respondent No. 2, a Revenue Inspector is transferred as Incharge Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Barwaha.

2. The appellant filed W. P. No. 7114/2021 to assail the said transfer order dated 18-3-2021. The transfer order was assailed on various grounds which are reproduced by learned Single Judge in para two of the impugned order dated 24-3-2021.

3. Shri A. K. Sethi, learned Sr. Counsel for appellant submits that although the writ Court in its order mentioned the main ground of challenge i.e. the appellant a substantive CMO could not have been substituted by Revenue Sub Inspector, did not specifically decided this point. By taking this Court to the Recruitment Rules namely M. P. State Municipal Service (Executive) Rules, 1973 (for short “Recruitment Rules”) it is urged that the appellant is entitled to occupy the post of CMO Class A. The private respondent is a revenue Inspector who is not even holding the feeder post for the purpose of promotion on the said post of CMO. As per said Rules, the posts of available in three categories. The private respondent is working in a Class C Municipal Council whereas appellant is entitled to occupy the post of CMO in Class A Municipality. The private respondent is required to travel a long upward distance in the ladder of promotion to occupy the substantive post of CMO Class A. He has to travel from Class C Municipality to Class B and then to Class A Municipality. On the strength of this factual backdrop, the learned Sr. Counsel for appellant submits that transfer order is bad in law. More so, when the appellant is victim of frequent transfer. By order dated 23-9-2020 he was transferred from Dhar to Barwaha and joined at Barwaha only on 25-9-2020. Within a short span of time of six months, the appellant is again subjected to transfer by stating it to be on “administrative exigency”.

4. Shri Vivek Dalal, learned A. A. G supported the transfer order and the order of writ Court. He also filed written submissions on behalf of the State wherein it is stated that as per (1986) 4 SCC 131, B. Vardha Rao vs. State of Karanataka and ors., the ground of frequent transfer is not available to Class I and Class II Officers of the Government. It is further urged that appellant was transferred on account of administrative exigency and this transfer is strictly in terms of Schedule II of M. P. Municipal Services (Executive) Rules, 1973 (as amended on 10-4-2015). The competent authority through coordination granted approval for transfer of the appellant. Thus, no fault can be found in the transfer of appellant.

5. Shri M. S. Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 opposed the prayer by contending that respondent No. 2 has already joined at the place of transfer. The respondent No. 2 has been absorbed in newly created Nagar Parishad with effect from 1-4-2015 on the post of Revenue Inspector (5200-20200 + 2100 GP). Heavy reliance is placed on the order passed by division bench in W. A. No. 1458/2019, Rajendra Prasad Mishra vs. State of M. P. and ors., by contending that CMO Class A can be transferred as a Dy. Commissioner in Municipal Corporation. It is pointed out that same view is taken by learned Single Judge. Reliance is also placed on the order dated 2-7-2019 passed in W. A. No. 984/2019, Ms. Sheetal Bhalavi vs. State of M. P., and 2014(2) M.P.L.J. 419, Sanjay Soni vs. State of M. P. It is averred that in Sanjay Soni (supra), it was held that only those employees were allowed to continue on the post who are holding substantive post in the feeder cadre for regular promotion on the