AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 367 wordsSujoy Paul, Judge
Petitioner is aggrieved by his transfer from Sheopur to Sagar by order dated 03.05.2012. He challenged this order before this Court in W.P. No. 3491/2012. In this case, this Court directed that the representation of the petitioner shall be decided. In turn, by order dated 12.07.2012, petitioner''s representation has been decided. Shri Raguvanshi submits that on revocation of suspension petitioner was required to be reinstated at the place from where he was suspended i.e. Sheopur, and therefore, impugned order is bad in law. He submits that petitioner has only one year and 8 months to retire and Sagar is old district and he should have been posted to new district.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Petitioner on his revocation of suspension was reinstated at Sheopur, which is clear from Annexure P-3 and P-1. By Annexure P-1, petitioner has been transferred, and therefore, it has no nexus with his suspension.
The transfer order can be challenged only if it violates a statutory provision, proved to be a malafide, changes service conditions of an employee to his detriment or found to be issued by an incompetent authority. None of these grounds are available in the present petition.
A Division Bench of this Court in R.S. Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P. and others [(2007) ILR M.P. 1329] has held that transfer order will not get vitiated on violation of transfer guidelines and proper course for the employee in such cases is to prefer a representation and request the departmental authorities to cancel the same.
In the present case, the petitioner has not raised any ground which warrants interference of this Court in writ jurisdiction. The transfer also in a directory manner prescribes that if a person is due for retirement within one year, he may be exempted. Petitioner has much more service in his credit. Considering the aforesaid, petitioner does not have any enforcible right to be posted in either new or old district. It is within the province of the respondents to decide the posting of the petitioner. I find no substance in this petition and it is hereby dismissed. No costs.