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
5 paragraphs · 233 wordsRajendra Menon, Judge
Petitioner is working as a R.A.E.O. Hoshangabad and by the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 he has been transferred from Hoshangabad to Balaghat. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground of personal inconveniences of the petitioner due to education of his children and breach of transfer policy. However, no statutory rules or regulations are shown to be violated nor is any malafide made out. That being so, it is not a fit case where judicial review of an administrative order of transfer can be made on the grounds canvassed in the writ petition.
Shri Narendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to certain orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 12018/2012 on 14.8.2012 and W.P. No. 12022/2012, wherein this Court had directed the competent authority to consider the representation of the employee and take a decision. There is no difficulty in passing such an order but certain observations made with regard to stay cannot be considered in the case of the petitioner.
Accordingly, finding the petitioner''s representation in the matter to be pending, the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. c.c. as per rules.