RAJEEV GOUTAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal preferred under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchacha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, challenge has been made to the order dated 24/7/2020 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition registered as W.P. No.9870/2020.

(2.) In the writ petition, appellant/petitioner had challenged the order dated 1/7/2020 passed by respondent no.2, whereby, while working on the post of Constable, he has been transferred from Police Line, Shivpuri to Police Line, Bhopal. The learned Single Judge, after considering the material available on record, found that the petitioner/appellant vide order dated 27/5/2020 was transferred from Shivpuri to Sagar and, admittedly, had not executed the said order and, therefore, it was held that the order dated 27/5/2020 could not be taken into consideration for verifying that whether the impugned order was frequent in nature or not. The learned Single Judge further held that so far as the question of assigning any reason for transferring a person in administrative exigency is concerned, the submission made by the counsel for the appellant/petitioner was misconceived and it was not necessary for the respondents to clarify the reasons for administrative exigencies. The transfer is an exigency of service and nobody could claim that he/she should be posted at a particular place. So far as appellant/petitioner's contention that having been appointed on compassionate ground he ought not to have been transferred is concerned, the learned Single Judge held that the appellant/petitioner could not point out any provision of law which exempted him from being transferred. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, while relying on the decision in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. (ILR [2015] MP 2556) wherein it has been held that mere filing of a representation would not create any vested right in favour of the employee and the direction to decide the representation can only be given after the transfer order is executed. Since the petitioner had not executed the transfer order, the learned Single Judge declined to issue any direction for deciding the pending representation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge contending that the writ Court did not consider the fact that it is a case of frequent transfer, inasmuch as within a period of one month second transfer order had been issued which amounts to frequent transfer. It is further submitted that no reasons have been assigned for passing the impugned order of transfer. Moreover, since the appellant/petitioner had been appointed on compassionate grounds, respondents could not have transferred him. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the respondents to decide the representation. Besides, the appellant/petitioner has been transferred from Police Line to Police Line, which shows that the order is malafidely passed and there is no administrative exigency. The earlier order was neither communicated to the appellant nor the same has been cancelled which further fructifies that the impugned order is tainted with malice.