The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the view taken by the writ court in any manner cannot be said to be unreasonable and unjustified as it is a settled principle of law.
The Court dismissed an appeal filed under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyaylaya Khand (Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 questioning the correctness of the order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No.16558/2020, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed holding that the transfer of an employee is a condition of service and interference in the same is not proper.
The appellant, Ravindra Gudadhe, who is holding the post of Secretary in Gram Panchayat Sawanga, Sausar Block, Chhindwara was directed to be transferred by the order dated 14.08.2020 to Gram Panchayat Tap, Chourai Block, Chhindwara. Being aggrieved with the order of transfer, the petitioner has filed a petition i.e. W.P. No.12470/2020 which was disposed of by the writ Court by the order dated 08.09.2020 directing the Authority to consider the representation of the petitioner. The Authority, in turn, rejected the representation filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed a petition i.e. W.P. No.16558/2020 challenging the order passed by the Authority whereby his representation has been rejected and also the order of his transfer dated 14.08.2020.
It was contended before the writ Court that the petitioner is a cardiac patient and taking treatment from Nagpur which is only 70 km away from his present place of posting whereas the transferred place is 170 km away from Nagpur, as a result of which, the medical treatment of the petitioner will suffer. Therefore, on compassionate grounds, the petitioner’s transfer order should be cancelled.
The writ court while dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner had taken note of the fact that the order of petitioner/appellant is not a singular order and there are a number of secretaries who are transferred vide order dated 14.08.2020. It is also observed by the writ court that in an earlier round of litigation, the Court had granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner by directing the Authority to consider the representation of the petitioner, but finally the Authority rejected his request.
Relying upon the orders passed by the Supreme Court reported in (2001) 8 SCC 574 [National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan] and (2001) 5 SCC 508 [State Bank of India Vs. Anjan Sanyal and others], it was observed by the writ Court that the transfer is an incidence of service and for considering and deciding the personal difficulties of an employee, the employer is the best judge to determine as to how and in what manner, the services of an employee can be taken in better manner.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Sanjay Dwivedi held that in the matter of transfer judicial review is permissible and can only be interfered with when the order of transfer is issued with mala fide intention or violates any statutory provision , but the petitioner has not raised any of the such grounds in his petition.
“Therefore, we are also of the opinion that the order passed by the writ Court is a reasoned one and the same does not call for any interference. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his representation before the Authority and if the Authority thinks fit, it may consider and decide the same in accordance with law,” the order reads.