WP/29860/2018 of ATAR SINGH KUSHWAH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2018

1

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHW.P. No. 29860/2018Atar Singh Kushwah vs. State of M.P.

W.P. No. 29860/2018

Gwalior date 31/12/2018

Shri Narottam Sharma, counsel for the applicant.Shri B.M. Patel, learned Government Advocate forthe respondent/State on advance notice.

I.A. No. 6438/2018, an application for urgenthearing during winter vacation is taken up, consideredand allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution ofIndia has been filed by the petitioner challenging thetransfer order dated 26/09/2018, by which, thepetitioner who is working on the post of Patwari hasbeen transferred from Patwari Halka No. 06 Tehra toPatwari Halka No. 10 Endori by the Sub Divisional Officer(revenue) Gohad, District Bhind.

It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner thatthe petitioner has not been relieved so far and he is stillworking at his original place of posting because he wasengaged in the election duty. It is further submitted thatthe Commissioner (Land records and Settlement) is theappointing authority of the Patwari and, therefore, hecan be transferred only by the order of theCommissioner (Land records and Settlement). It isfurther submitted that even otherwise as per thetransfer policy dated 19/05/2017, State cadre employeecan be transferred by the departmental head with priorrecommendation of the concerning Incharge Minister.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

So far as the transfer policy is concerned, it isfairly conceded by counsel for the petitioner that it is notenforceable as it is merely an executive instructions,therefore, transfer cannot be quashed on the ground of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHW.P. No. 29860/2018Atar Singh Kushwah vs. State of M.P.

violation of any of the condition /clause of the transferpolicy. So far as the contention of counsel for thepetitioner that the appointing authority is theCommissioner (Land records and Settlement) and,therefore, the petitioner can be transferred by theCommissioner (Land records and Settlement), thesubmission made by counsel for the petitioner isbaseless and misconceived. A person cannot be removedfrom his office by the authority sub-ordinate to theappointing authority, but there is nothing on record toshow that a person cannot be transferred by theauthority sub-ordinate to the appointing authority. It isfairly conceded by counsel for the petitioner that Sub-Divisional Officer is the immediate head of theconcerning Sub-Division and the petitioner has beentransferred within the Sub-Division, Gohad.

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered viewthat no perversity could be pointed out by counsel forthe petitioner with regard to eligibility/authority of Sub-Divisional Officer (revenue), Gohad, District Bhind.

Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is herebydismissed.

(G.S.Ahluwalia)

Vacation Judge

Durgekar*

SANJAY N. DURGEKAR 2019.01.02 11:35:04 +05'30'