Ratan Kumre vs Principal Secretary State of M.P. and Others

Heard on the question of admission. This is an intra Court appeal u/s 2 (1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyaylaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 at the instance of the writ petitioner who was working on the post of Assistant Supply Officer in the Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department of the State Government challenging the order dated 13.09.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8854/2012 (s).

Briefly stated the appellant was transferred vide order dated 13.07.2012 from Khargone to Harda. Challenging the said transfer order, he filed a Writ Petition No. 7799/2012 (s). The said writ petition was disposed of by writ Court vide order dated 13.08.2012 by directing the respondents to consider the appellant''s representation in accordance with law.

Thereafter, the appellant''s representation was considered and rejected vide order dated 08.09.2012. The said order of rejection of his representation was challenged by the appellant by filing Writ Petition No. 8854/2012 (s). The learned Single Judge after going through the said order dated 08.09.2012 held that no case for interference is made out since the petitioner''s transfer has been made on the basis of administrative exigencies. Feeling aggrieved the appellant/writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the writ Court has failed to consider the writ petitioner''s ground that his transfer was made only to favour and accommodate the private respondents and there was no administrative exigencies. It is also his case that the issue raised about the frequent transfers has not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, we find that in the earlier round of litigation in Writ Petition No. 7799/2012 (s), the private respondents were not made a party and the ground about the writ petitioner being transferred to accommodate the private respondents was not taken and urged. It is for the first time in the second round of litigation that these private respondents has been arrayed in the writ petition and the grounds to that effect was taken. Similarly it appears that the ground about frequent transfers was also not taken and urged in the earlier petition.

Having regard to the aforesaid background facts, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter in this intra Court appeal.

No case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.