The central legal point established in the judgment is the permissibility of transferring the petitioner under Rule 6(7) of the Rules of 2011 and the absence of a mandatory requirement for approval from the General Administrative Committee in the transfer policy.

ORDER/JUDGMENT – Heard through Video Conferencing.

Shri Utkarsh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri A. P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General with Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents/State.

2. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging transfer order dated 31-8-2021. By impugned order, petitioner has been transferred from Gram Panchayat Jamuniya Pathar situated in Janpad Panchayat Parasia to Gram Panchayat Kopakheda situated in Janpad Panchayat Amarwada in District Chhindwara.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner cannot be transferred from one Janpad Panchayat to another Janpad Panchayat. He placed reliance on judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of Gram Panchayat Hardi vs. Anil Dixit and others, reported in 2016(1) M.P.L.J. 29. It is submitted that in said judgment it has been held that Panchayat Secretary can be transferred within Janpad Panchayat. Counsel for petitioner also relied on judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 671/2012, Gram Panchayat vs. State of M.P. and others, order dated 1-11-2012. In said case, transfer order was quashed. He further relied on judgment in case of Aysha Naz vs. State of M. P. and others, passed in W.P. No. 8977/2012, dated 3-9-2012 and also order passed in W.P. No. 4118/2012 dated 8-7-2014. In these cases, it has been held that transfer order cannot be passed without approval of General Administrative Committee. On strength of aforesaid judgments, counsel for petitioner argued that transfer order which has been passed without approval of General Administrative Committee is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.

4. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for State relied on the judgment dated 17-11-2015 passed in W.A. No. 823/2015 [Gram Panchayat, Hardi vs. Anil Dixit,]. In said case, it has been held by Division Bench that transfer policy which has been enacted pursuant to Rule 6(7) of M. P. Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 does not have any binding force. He further relied on Division Bench judgment dated 27-2-2021 passed in W.P. No. 31/2021. In this case, it has been held that Panchyat Secretary can be transferred within district as per Rules of 2011. Seniority of Panchayat Secretary is maintained within district, therefore, transfer order by which the petitioner has been transferred from one district to another district was quashed. Relying on aforesaid judgments, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that petitioner has been transferred from one Janpad Panchayat to another Janpad Panchayat, which is permissible as per Rules of 2011. Transfer policy is not binding. There is no illegality in the order, therefore, writ petition be dismissed.

5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents.

Petitioner has been transferred from one Janpad Panchayat to another Janpad Panchayat, which is permissible as per Rule 6(7) of the Rules of 2011. In judgment of Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 671/2012 (Gram Panchayat vs State of M. P. and others), it is held that transfer made in absence of approval of General Administrative Committee is bad because as per transfer policy, which was existing then it is mandatory to receive approval from General Administrative Committee. Similarly, in case of Aysha Naz vs. State of M. P. and others (W.P. No. 8977/2012), order dated 3-9-2013 was passed considering the policy enacted under the Rules. Similarly, the judgment of Division Bench in W.A. No. 823/2015 dated 17-11-2015 was also passed considering the policy. In aforesaid judgments, policy enacted under the Rules was considered and as per said policy, it was mandatory for General Administrative Committee to grant approval to pass transfer order. There is no policy in existence in present case. Policy on which petitioner has placed reliance dated 26-3-2018 is not applicable in the case of petitioner. Petitioner has not been transfer