Mohan Singh Lawana vs State of M.P.

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard on the question of admission.

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 10.6.2014 issued by respondent no.3 Collector, Land Record, Bhopal, whereby the petitioner''s representation against order dated 4.2.2014 transferring the petitioner from Tehsil Huzur to Tehsil Bairasiya, Bhopal has been rejected after examining the same in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P No. 3250/2014(S) issued on 21.3.2014.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no reason whatsoever has been stated by the authorities for transferring the petitioner. It is submitted that merely because the petitioner has remained posted in Huzur Tehsil for 15 years would not be a justifiable ground for transfer, moreso as the State Government has itself taken a decision to the effect that Patwaris can be posted in their home tehsil also. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while other persons have been adjusted on their representation, the petitioner has been transferred thereby subjecting him to discrimination.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the authorities while examining the petitioner''s representation has observed that the petitioner has already joined his transferred place of posting on 13.2.2014 in Bairasiya Tehsil. The authority has also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner is posted in Huzur Tehsil for the last 15 years continuously and administrative exigency requires that a person should be shifted or rotated from one place to another after such a long time. The authority has specifically stated that the impugned order has not been issued specifically targeting the petitioner or victimizing him but it is a general order transferring several other persons alongwith the petitioner. The authority has also taken into consideration the petitioner''s contention regarding availability of school and medical facilities in Bairasiya Tehsil and has thereafter rejected the representation of the petitioner.

It is a settled law that this Court can interfere in the order of transfer only when there is any violation of the statutory provisions of the rules or the order is vitiated by malafide. None of the aforesaid two grounds are available in the present petition. Which employee has to be posted where is the sole prerogative of the employer and this Court is not normally required to interfere in the same in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh, and Another Vs. S.S. Kourav and Others, , Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Sri Janardhan Debanath and Another, and State of U.P. and Others Vs. Gobardhan Lal, .

In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.