The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh (RAVINDRA MANKAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

1

04-10-2021 Jabalpur, Dated :

Heard through Video Conferencing.

Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Jagat Singh, learned panel lawyer for the respondents/State.

The present petition is being filed challenging the transfer order dated

31.08.2021 (Annexure-P-2) passed b y respondent No.4 whereby, the petitioner has been transferred from Govt. Middle School, Chindkhera Block Prabhatpattan, District-Betul to Govt. Middle School, Chikhlimaal, District-

Betul (MP).

The main grounds of challenge is that the petitioner is mutually transferred as it is reflected from the transfer order dated 31.8.2021 but the fact remain that the petitioner has not made any application for mutual transfer and has never given any consent regarding the same. It is pointed that in the representation filed by the petitioner before the authorities 8.9.2021. The aforesaid aspect is mentioned by the petitioner however no such averment is made in the writ petition.

When the case was taken up in the first round, this Court has made a specific query to the petitioner to point out from the petition memo that whether such ground has been taken by the petitioner and he fairly submits that no such ground is taken by the petitioner in the writ petition. Again a query was made that if the assertion made in representation are found to be incorrect by the authorities then he has to face consequences of making an incorrect representation. The counsel for the petitioner submits that he has to seek some instructions from the client and prays for pass over.

When the matter was take over in the pass over round, counsel for the petitioner has stated at bar that as per the instructions of the client, the contents of the representation are correct and he has rightly mentioned that he Signature Not Verified SAN has not submitted any application or not given any consent for transfer on mutual basis.

It is argued that the petitioner has not being relieved till date and is still functioning, therefore, he has preferred a detailed representation to respondent authorities but the same is kept pending and has not yet been decided till date. An innocuous prayer is made to direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner within a short time and till then the petitioner may be permitted to continue at the present place of posting.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer pointing out the fact that transfer order is clearly reflect that the transfer order is made on his own request and on mutual basis. The statement made by the petitioner is required to be verified, as there is no averment in the petition memo regarding the same. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S. Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329 and in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556. and has submits that the interference in the transfer order can be made only on certain conditions. No such circumstances are available to the petitioner. He has fairly submitted that the representation will be considered and decided at an early date.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The law with respect to transfer is settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2007) MP 1329 wherein it is held as under :-

"Transfer Policy formulated by State is not enforceable as employee does not have a right and courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere in the order of transfer. Court can interfere in case of mandatory statutory rule or action is capricious, malicious, cavalier and fanciful. In case of violation of policy, proper remedy is to approach authorities by pointing out violation and authorities to deal with the same