Siroman Singh Kushwah vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, Judge

Heard. The petitioner is aggrieved from his transfer, whereby he is transferred from his home Tahsil Bhind to Mehgaon.

Counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that although the distance between the said two places is only 50 kms, yet the transfer order is bad in law because the petitioner''s daughter is handicapped and her disability is more than 40%. He has relied on Clause 9.18 of the transfer policy to submit that the transfer order is bad in law. He further submits that the petitioner was earlier transferred by order dated 15.06.2010 from Umri to Bhind and within three years, he has again been transferred, which is bad in law.

Shri R.P. Rathi, Government Advocate for respondents/ State submits that as per the policy decision, the Revenue Inspectors are transferred outside from home Tahsil.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This Court had an occasion to consider the cases of Patwaris where the State Government as per the policy decision transferred them out of their home Tahsil. This Court relying on the policy decision of the State Government had dismissed one such petition, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the Patwaris before the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The said order has attained finality. In this petition, the petitioner and other persons as mentioned in Annexure P/1 are transferred out of their home Tahsil. For the reasons as stated herein above, I find no infirmity or illegality in the said order. It is settled in law that 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.

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S. Choudhary Vs. State of MP reported in 2007 ILR MP 329 has held that mere violation of the transfer policy will not make the transfer order as illegal. On the basis of the aforesaid, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The petitioner is even otherwise transferred to a distance of only 50 Kms. The ailment of the ward and personal inconvenience is not a ground to invite interference by this Court. Consequently the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the liberty is reserved to the petitioner to pursue his departmental representation.