Narayan Singh Barkade vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Ravi Shankar Jha, J.—Heard Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anubhav Jain learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on advance copy, on the question of admission and interim relief.

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2012 by which the representation of the petitioner against the order dated 20.8.2014 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Gram Panchayat Gujarsani to Gram Panchayat Jabera, in District Damoh has been rejected.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working as a Panchayat Secretary and has been transferred by the impugned order dated 20.8.2014 purportedly under the policy framed by the State for transfers of Panchayat Secretaries.

It is submitted that the respondents/authorities have totally ignored the stipulation given in the policy and have transferred the petitioner to a Gram Panchayat which was 50 kms away, hence the petitioner had to file a W.P. No. 14932/2014 before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 7.10.2014 with a direction to the respondents/authorities to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of two months and till then the operation of the impugned order of transfer was directed to be stayed.

It is submitted that the authorities have passed the impugned order dated 12.12.2014 rejecting the petitioner''s representation. However, while doing so, the authorities have not given any reason in detail for rejecting the same. The petitioner submits that the other person who had been transferred in place of the petitioner has been adjusted in nearby Gram Panchayat whereas petitioner''s claim has been rejected without giving any reason for the same. Hence the impugned order dated 12.12.2014 be quashed.

The respondents have filed the return and have stated that the petitioner''s representation was considered and rejected by the authorities after giving opportunity of personal hearing and after considering all the objections raised by the petitioner. It is stated that the objection raised by the petitioner was found to be factually incorrect, hence the representation was rejected. Along with the return, the respondents have also filed a document as Annexure R/1 which is a report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Narainganj, giving the exact distance between Gram Panchayat Gujarsani to Gram Panchayat Jabera. The respondents have stated that that the distance between the two gram panchayats is only 19 kms whereas the petitioner has wrongly alleged that it is 50 kms. The respondents have submitted that as the factual assertion of the petitioner has been found to be incorrect, his representation has been rejected.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner it is observed that the authorities have duly considered the representation of the petitioner and have also given an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and on finding that the factual assertion was incorrect, rejected the representation.

It is settled law that which employee has to be posted where is the prerogative of the authorities concerned and in such matters this Court has no role to play under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India unless and until the order of transfer is vitiated on account of malafides or contrary to the statutory provisions as has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 532 : (1991) LabIC 360 : (1991) 2 LLJ 591 : (1991) 2 SCC 659 Supp and Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 : (1993) 3 JT 678 : (1993) LabIC 1311 : (1993) 2 LLJ 626 : (1993) 2 SCALE 718 : (1993) 4 SCC 357 .

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. It is however, observed that the petitioner who is a Panchayat Secretary and according to the policy of the State itself, the Panchayat Secretary can be adjusted in near by Gram Panchayat and in such circumstances, while the impugned order of transfer is upheld, it is observed that dismissal of this petition would not preclude the petitioner from approaching the respondents/authorities by filing a fresh representation seeking adjustment and posting in nearby gram panchayat in accordance with the policy of the State.

However, it is made clear that this court has not issued any positive order in favour of the petitioner nor has this Court expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore the authority concerned while deciding the petitioner''s representation would be at liberty to take into consideration all facts and facets of the case and thereafter take a decision thereon in accordance with law.

The petition filed by the petitioner being meritless, is accordingly dismissed.