RAJA BHAIYA BUNDELA Vs. STATE OF M. P.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Raja Bhaiya Bundela
STATE OF M. P.
Click here to view full judgement.
Vishal Mishra,J. -
(1.) In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this petition has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.
(2.) The present petition has been filed challenging the transfer order dated 8.12.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Gram Panchayat Makrawda Janpad Panchayat Guna District Guna to Zila Panchayat Rajgad in another district. It is submitted that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers thrice within a short span of one and half years. Earlier he was transferred vide order dated 10.03.2019 from Gram Panchayat Udaypuri Janpad Panchayat Guna to Gram Panchayat Konyakala Chachoda. Thereafter, vide order dated 8.8.2019 from Gram Panchayat Konyakala Janpad Pachayat Chachoda to Gram Panchayat Makrawda Janpad Panchayat Guna and within a short span again he has been transferred on 8.12.2020 from Gram Panchayat Makrawada to Zila Panchayat Rajgad out of the district. It is argued that the petitioner is a district cadre employee and his transfer should not be made out of the district as provided in the arrangement amendment made regarding transfer of Secretaries of the Panchayat. The services of the petitioner are governed by Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2011 wherein Rule 6.7 clearly provides that the transfer of an employee of a district cadre should not be made out of the district. He has relied upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 671/2012 in the case of Gram Panchayat, Jhadel vs. State of M.P. and Ors. wherein similar circumstances considering the fact that the petitioner has been frequently transferred the order impugned was quashed. He has further relied upon the judgment passed in W.P. No.11308/20 in the case of Shailendra Adivasi vs. State of M.P. and Ors. wherein vide order dated 13.10.2020 the transfer order has been quashed owing to violation of guidelines. It is argued that apart from frequent transfers a legal question is involved in the matter. As there is a gross violation of Rule 6.7 which debars the authority to transfer the petitioner beyond the district. It is submitted that till date nobody has joined in place of the petitioner. Therefore, prays for an interim relief in the matter.
(3.) Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the contentions and has submitted that with respect to the candidate no. 2 mentioned in the impugned order a writ petition was preferred being W.P. No. 20116/20 which was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on similar issues against which a writ appeal was preferred which was registered as W.A. No.31/2021 and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.01.2021 has directed the learned Additional Advocate General to seek instructions with respect to the legal issue in the matter and has directed for listing of the matter in the next week. The aforesaid writ appeal is probably going to be listed in the week commencing 25.01.2021. In such circumstances, he has prayed for keeping the matter after hearing of the writ appeal on the question of legal issue. He has further pointed that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy also which is clearly reflected in document Annexure P/8 dated 4.8.2016 issuing guidelines for transferring of Panchayat Secretaries. Clause 12 is relevant which clearly says that against the transfer order an appeal to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat should be preferred within a period of seven days. The petitioner without availing the remedy has directly approached this Court by filing the present petition which is not maintainable for want of alternative remedy. However, he has prayed for keeping the petition in week commencing 25.01.2021 and in the alternative has also prayed for dismissal of the petition for want of alternative remedy in terms of Clause 12.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.