The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Rule 15(j) of the M.P. Jila Panchayat (Business) Rules, 1998 and the significance of compliance with Rule 3(b), (d) and 6(7) of the M.P. Panchayat Services (Gram Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 in the transfer of a Panchayat Secretary.

ORDER

Subodh Abhyankar, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/ a Panchayat Secretary under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the transfer order dated 07/07/2023, passed by respondent No.2 Chief Executive Officer, Jija Panchayat, Indore (M.P.) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Gram Panchayat, Rangwasa, Janpad Panchayat, Indore to Gram Panchayat, Jafarabad, Janpad Panchayat, Mhow.

2. The order has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that it does not comply with the mandatory provisions as prescribed under Rule 15(j) of M.P. Jila Panchayat (Business) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1998'), which clearly provides that all the cases including transfers etc. shall be brought for decision before the General Administrative Committee as prescribed under the aforesaid rules. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision rendered in the case of Rakesh Kumar Shakya vs. State of M.P. and another reported as 2010 (1) MPLJ 656 in which, the issue of transfer of Secretary of Gram Panchayat has been specifically dealt with, and in which the Court has relied upon the transfer policy dated 26/03/2018 which is framed in line with the provisions of Rules of 1998.

3. Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the powers of transfer vests with the Chief Executive Officer of Jila Panchayat as provided under M.P. Panchayat Services (Gram Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2011'), and attention of this court is also drawn to Rule 3(b) and 3(d) of Rules of 1994, which provides for appointment of Gram Panchayat Secretary by Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat in Gram Panchayats coming under its control. It is also submitted that even according to Sub Rule (7) of Rule 6 of Rules of 2011, Gram Panchayat Secretary may be transferred on administrative exigency by the Chief Executive Officer, however, it is also submitted that while transferring such Secretary, adherence of Rules of 1998 is mandatory which is apparent from Rules of 1998 itself. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned being contrary to law is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Shri Samanway Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.4 has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order whereby the petitioner has been transferred, and in his place, respondent No.4 has been posted from Gram Panchayat, Kampel to Gram Panchayat, Rangwasa. It is submitted that after Rules 2011 came into force, the Rules of 1998 shall have no applicability as the only requirement under Sub Rule (7) of Rule 6 of Rules of 2011 is that there has to be some administrative ground or an inquiry may also be conducted on this behalf on recommendation of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of transfer of Panchayat Secretary. Shri Sharma has also submitted that the decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner has already been taken into account by the subsequent decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jabalpur in the case of Krishna Nagwanshi vs. State of M.P. reported as 2022(1) MPLJ 41 as also the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court at Jabalpur in WP No.17551/2021 dated 13/09/2021 in the case of Vijay Pawar and others vs. State of M.P. and others which has also been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Pawar and others vs. State of M.P. and others passed in W.A. No.869 and 873/2021, dated 26/10/2021, wherein, the decision rendered by the Single Bench in the case of Krishna Nagwanshi (supra) and Rakesh Kumar Urmaliya (supra) have also been affirmed. Counsel has also submitted that even according to Rule 3 of Rules 1998, only those cases can be brought before the General Administrative Commi