Ku. Shruti Suman vs The State of M.P. & others

The challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made to the order dated 09.05.2017, whereby the petitioner

is transferred from Nagar Parishad, Kothi to Nagar Parishad, Shahpura.

Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that although the services of petitioner are transferable, the present transfer is not

based on any administrative exigency. By order dated 02.02.2016, the petitioner was harassed by the respondents and her work of Sub-Engineer

was entrusted to a daily rated employe. Reliance is placed on her report to the police authority dated 21.09.2016 (Annexure-P/6) and the

documents (Annexure-P/8), whereby the Parishad decided to retain her. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order is passed

on the instance of respondents No.6 & 7.

Mr. Chatterjee, learned G.A. and Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents No.6 & 7 supported the impugned order. Mr.

Chatterjee contended that the impugned order is passed by the competent authority at the level of Head-Quarter on which no interference is

warranted.

No other point is pressed by the parties.

I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

This is trite law that interference on transfer order can be made on limited grounds. If an employee is compelled to establish that transfer order

runs contrary to any statutory provision (not policy guideline), proved to be malafide, passed by an incompetent authority or changes her service

condition to her detriment, interference can be made. In the present case, the transfer order is issued by Engineer-in-Chief and his competency is

not in question. The said authority has not been impleaded eo-nomine. In other words, no malafide is alleged against the said authority. The

respondents categorically denied that the transfer order is passed on any other ground then the administrative grounds. It is averred that the transfer

being an incident of service, the petitioner was transferred in administrative exigency. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to rebut the same.

The petitioner is unable to connect the transfer order with the order (Annexure-P/4) and other documents filed at Page No.25-A & 29-A of the

petition. In other words, petitioner is unable to establish that impugned order is malicious and arbitrary in nature. The transfer is an incidence of

service. I find no ground in the present case on which interference can be made. Petition sans substance and is hereby dismissed.