O R D E R

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 04.08.2022, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the present place of posting as Tehsildar Parasiya, district Chhindwara to Nayab Tehsildlar, Bicchua.

2. The facts of the case reveal that vide order dated 07.08.2020, the petitioner, posted as Nayab Tehsildar, was transferred from Chhindwara to Harrai. However, the said transfer order was modified and she was asked to join at Tehsil Umreth vide order dated 26.09.2020. She was granted maternity leave from 10.11.2020 to 08.05.2021 vide sanction order dated 17.02.2021 and thereafter on Child Care Leave, which was granted vide order dated 27.05.2021. On completion of the aforementioned leaves, petitioner was directed to join at Tehsil Chhindwara vide order dated 28.12.2021. However, just after 21 days of joining at Chhindwara, the petitioner was again transferred vide order dated 21.01.2022.

3. The order is assailed on the ground that (i) order has been passed by an incompetent authority, as petitioner is detailed to act as Presiding Officer for election of Presidents and Vice Presidents of Municipal Council Newtonchikhli, Chhindwara vide order dated 31.07.2022. Therefore, the competence to issue any direction including transfer lies with the State Election Commissioner by virtue of Section 28-A of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951; (ii) the same is frequent in nature as petitioner has joined at the present place of posting on 21.01.2022 and she has been transferred thrice within a period of two years; (iii) order of transfer is punitive and done by way of punishment on the basis of certain complaints, hence the same is unsustainable.

4. Per contra, the stand of respondent is that transfer being an incidence of service, it is entirely within the prerogative of the State to transfer the petitioner. It is urged that the petitioner has not been transferred but has been posted within the district due to official arrangement by the Collector as per the administrative exigency. It is further stated that the allegation pertaining to posting as presiding officer is also not available to the petitioner as Achar Sanhita was till 18.07.2022 for the urban area in Chhindwara. It is further pointed out that there is series of complaints against the petitioner. The said complaints were enquired into and the petitioner was warned on 25.07.2022. However, the petitioner did not improve her work and remained absent due to which the office work was badly affected, it was, therefore, decided to transfer the petitioner. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 05.08.2022 against her transfer order, however, the same has been rejected vide order dated 16.08.2022.

5. No other ground has been raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. As regards the contention of petitioner that the order has been passed by an incompetent authority as she has been detailed to act as Presiding Officer for the election of Presidents and Vice Presidents of Municipal Council, and no action can be taken while she is on election duty and under the control of State Election Commission is highly misconceived as vide order dated 21.07.2022, passed by the Collector, the petitioner was only appointed as Presiding Officer at Municipal Council Newtonchikli for the purpose of presiding over the meeting of the elected councilors to be held on 10.08.2022 and she was not under the control of State Election Commission.

8. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has been shifted four times within a period of two years. The transfer has been defined under the M.P. Civil Services (Joining Time)

Rules, 1982. Rule 2(b) defines transfer as under :- “2. Definitions.- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires :- (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) “Transfer” means the movement of a