Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/21343/2016 of B.R. CHOUHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2016
Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 29-12-2016 Shri
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
WP-21343-2016
(B.R. CHOUHANVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
29-12-2016
Shri A.S.Raizada, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri B.D.Singh, GA for the respondents/State.
I.A.No.17372/16 and 17373/16 for urgent hearing during wintervacation are taken-up.
For the reasons stated therein, IAs are allowed.
Petitioner is aggrieved by his transfer from Sausar to Balaghat.It is submitted that petitioner is due for retirement within 18months. His application seeking transfer to Indore could notfetch any result. Now he has been transferred to a differentplace which is bad in law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on thejudgment of Supreme Court in T.S.R.Subramanian Vs. Unionof India- 2013(15) SCC 732 submits that the impugned orderwithout constitution of Board, is bad in law.
Prayer is opposed by Shri B.D.Singh, GA.
During the course of hearing, this court asked learned counselfor the petitioner to point out the pleadings wherein it isaverred that no such Board as directed by the Supreme Court inT.S.R.Subramanian (supra), is constituted by Govt. ofMadhya Pradesh. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable toshow any such pleading.
Considering the aforesaid, the said judgment cannot be pressedinto service.
Transfer is condition of service. Merely because petitioner'srepresentation seeking transfer to Indore Division is pending, it cannot be said that his transfer to elsewhere is impermissible.Considering the aforesaid, I find no reason to interfere in thismatter. However, as held by Division Bench in R.S.ChoudharyVs. State of M.P-ILR 2007 MP 1329, the petitioner mayprefer a representation before the competent authority. If suchrepresentation is preferred, the competent authority shallconsider and decide it within thirty days in accordance with lawby a reasoned order. The outcome shall be communicated to thepetitioner.
Petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion onmerits of the case.C.C as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL)JUDGE
MKL