IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI ON THE 1^st OF APRIL, 2022 WRIT PETITION No. 26708 of 2021 Between:-

BHAGWATRAM TUMRAM S/O BHUPAT SINGH , AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASTT.TEACHER GOVT.PRIMARY SCHOOL KHAKRA KOYLARI, BLOCK GHODADONGRI, DIST.BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (SHRI JITENDRA ARYA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY TRIBAL WELFARE DEPTT. VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. TRIBAL WELFARE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH COMMISSIONER VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. TRIBAL AFFAIRS AND SCHEDULE CASTE WELFARE DEPARTMENT THROUGH COMMISSIONER DIVISION HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. TRIBAL WELFARE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DISTT.BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI AMIT PANDEY, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE)

This petition coming on for admission on this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been made to the order dated 17.11.2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by the respondent no.4, whereby the representation dated 3.9.2021 filed by the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 31.08.2021 whereby the petitioner, who is working as Primary School Teacher, has been transferred from Govt. Primay School, Khakra Koylari, Block Ghodadongri, District Betul to Govt. Primary School, Dabida, Block Chicholi, District Betul, on administrative exigency.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order is in blatant violation of the transfer policy. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.18575/2021 challenging the order dated 31.08.2021. Vide order dated 17.9.2021, this Court has disposed of the said writ petition with the direction to decide the representation. The representation has been decided and the same has been rejected vide impugned order dated 17.11.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the grounds raised in the representation have not been considered. He further submitted that respondents have not considered the fact that petitioner’s wife is also working as Primary Teacher and she is posted at Development Block Ghodadongri and if the petitioner is transferred from that place then that will be violation of transfer policy. He also submitted that he is not a surplus teacher. These aspects have not been considered while deciding the representation, therefore, the matter may again be relegated back for reconsideration on these points. On these grounds prayer for quashing of the impugned order is made.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that no interference with the order of transfer is warranted as the same has been passed owing to administrative exigency. Moreover, the transfer policy is in the nature of guidelines. There is no statutory violation of any rules and no malafide has been pleaded. This is second round of litigation. The petitioner is working in the Govt. Primay School, Khakra Koylari, Block Ghodadongri, District Betul, since last 28 years and he has been transferred on administrative exigency. Moreover, on perusal of the order rejecting the representation, annexure P/6, specific reasons have been assigned for transfer of the petitioner owing to administrative exigency. That apart, on perusal of the grounds raised in the representation, it can be seen that the grounds are more or less personal and not legal and, therefore, as held by the Apex court in catena of cases, that in normal course the transfer should not be interfered with. With the aforesaid, it is submitted that the petition being devoid of merit and substance, deserves to be dismissed.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is substantial force in the submissions advanced by learned Panel Lawyer. Moreover, it is well settled in law that tra