Narayan Singh Rajpoot vs The State of MP and Another

Sujoy Paul, J.—Petitioner, an Assistant Grade-III is transferred from Tahsil Guna to Tahsil Bamori, which as per Learned Counsel for the petitioner, is 60 Kms. away. It is challenged on the ground that the petitioner is suffering from 30% disability and certain heart ailment. The petitioner earlier prayed for allotment of Government quarter and filed W.P.No. 6824/2011(S) before this Court and, therefore, the respondents are annoyed with him. Petitioner''s daughter is studying at Guna. The transfer order can be interfered with only when it runs contrary to the statutory provision, changes the service conditions of an employee to his detriment, issued by an incompetent authority or the transfer order is proved to be a malafide one, etc.

Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S. Choudhary Vs. State of M.P reported in ILR (2007) M.P 1329 has held as under:-

In view of the aforesaid pronunciation of law by the Apex Court in several cases, which we have referred hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the transfer policy formulated by the State is not enforceable as the employee does have a right and the Courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere in the order of transfer. The Court can interfere if there is violation of mandatory statutory rule or if the action of the Government is capricious, malicious, cavalier and fanciful. What would constitute these components that would depend on facts of each case as the same can be neither illustratively or exhaustively stated. In fact, that is not warrantable to be stated. We proceed to hold that in case an order of transfer is assailed on the ground that there has been violation of the policy, the proper remedy is to approach the authorities by pointing out the violation and it is expected of the authorities to deal with the same keeping in mind the policy guidelines with utmost objectivity. Emphasis supplied

I do not find any reason which warrants interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. The transfer policy provides protection to the person whose disability is 40% or above. Petitioner''s disability is shown as 30% as per Annexure P/3. The petitioner is taking treatment from Bhopal which he can avail even from transferred place. Education of daughter and personal inconvenience is not a ground for interference. I find no reason to interfere. Petition is not entertained. However, this will not preclude the petitioner to pursue his departmental representation. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.