ORDER

The present intra Court appeal has been filed under Section 2 (1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assailing the order passed on 13.9.2021 by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18139/2021 (Sahana Sultani Vs. State of M.P.& Ors.) whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant (herein after referred as ‘petitioner’) has been dismissed.

2. By the said petition, petitioner challenged the legality and validity of order dated 31.8.2021 passed by Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Admin), M.P. State Rural Livelihood Mission, Bhopal transferring the petitioner from District Umaria to District Sajapur on the post of Assistant Block Manager.

3. The facts of the case exposited in a nutshell are that the petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Block Manager on contractual basis and was posted at Pali, District-Umaria till 2020, thereafter she was transferred from Pali, District-Umaria to Manpur Block,Umaria and once again by the order under challenge dated 31.8.2021, she was transferred from District Umaria to District Sajapur, which is at a distance of 580 kms. from the present place of posting.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner heavily placed reliance on circular dated 24.2.2020, wherein it was provided that transfer of contractual employee is permissible only on extreme conditions coupled with administrative exigency, whereas the transfer order dated 31.8.2020 does not reflect any such condition or administrative exigency, but it is an order of bulk transfer causing great hardship to the petitioner and entire family.

5. The learned Single Judge after considering arguments of the rival parties and considering the provisions of Clause 3.5 of Model Human Resource Manual as well as Clause 9.1 of the circular dated 24.2.2020 held that transfer being a condition of the service can only be challenged on limited grounds such as violation of any of terms and conditions of service, which directly and/or indirectly affect the service of the employee, the transfer being an outcome of malafide of authorities or the same is in violation of any statutory rules.

6. Learned Single Judge further held that Clause 15 of the contract entered into by the petitioner also provides that her services are transferable.

The petitioner has accepted the appointment knowing well the conditions enumerated in the Manual as well in the contract, which have been entered into by her. After considering the circumstances of the case, learned Single Judge dismissed the petition however, liberty was granted to the petitioner to prefer a representation before the respondent, authorities for redressal of her grievance with a direction that if such representation is preferred within ten days from the date of order, the authorities are expected to deal with the representation and pass a self contained speaking order expeditiously.

7. Challenge made to the impugned order is on the ground that the transfer of a contractual employee can be done subject to establishment of ‘special circumstances’ and not otherwise under the transfer policy of the State Government. It is argued that in terms of Clause 9.1 of the Policy dated 24.2.2020, the contractual employee engaged for a specific work and purpose cannot be transferred to another place. Their services cannot be transferred until and unless there are administrative exigencies and special circumstances. No specific reason has been mentioned in the impugned transfer order. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the transfer of the petitioner is in violation of Clause 9.1 of the policy dated 24.2.2020.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant relied on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in W.A.No.281/2021 (Seema Pasi Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) decided on 25.9.2021 wherein the Division Bench held that the contractual employee can be transferred only in special circumstances and administ