Mohan Namdeo vs State of M.P. and Others

This order shall also decide W.A. No. 1346 of 2012 R.K. Bharadwaj vs. State of M.P. & ors. These appeal are directed against an order dated 10.10.2012 passed in W.P. 17127/12 by which writ petition preferred by both the appellants was dismissed by the learned Single Bench against their transfer order from Seoni to Rewa and Satna respectively. This order has been assailed by the appellants on the following grounds :-

That the transfer order was issued at the behest of respondent No. 4 who happens to be a political person, was annoyed with the appellants and written a letter to the concerned Minister for transfer of the appellants from Seoni to some other place.

That at Seoni there are short of Sub Engineers and in this regard the letter Annexure A-3 dated 24.9.2012 was sent by the C.E.O. Janpad Panchayat, Kurrai to the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Division No. 1, Seoni for posting of one S.K. Amule, Sub Engineer in the office so the appellants herein may be relieved.

That the children of the appellants are studying at Seoni and if the appellants could have been relieved immediately after transfer, the appellants could have made proper arrangements of their children at the transferred place but relieving the appellants in mid session will hamper the education of their children.

On the aforesaid grounds, it is submitted that this appeal may be admitted and the transfer orders transferring the appellants to Rewa and Satna respectively, may be quashed.

We have perused the record. The learned Single Judge found that the letter of respondent No. 4 was procured for the purposes of filing of the petition. Except this, there was no other material available on record to show that respondent No. 4 was behind the transfer of the appellants. So far as the other grievances are concerned, the learned Single Judge has found that they are personal problems which cannot be resolved in the writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the same contention before this Court also.

We find that the letter of respondent No. 4 was produced before the writ court, though it was explained that the respondent No. 4 himself had handed over to the appellants to show that because of him the appellants have been transferred but the aforesaid explanation cannot be believed prima facie. Letter was written on 18.4.2012 and if the respondent No. 4 was instrumental in transfer of the appellants, the appellants could have obtained the aforesaid letter or copy of the letter from the concerned department showing that because of the letter Annexure P-2, the appellants were transferred. In absence of which, merely on the basis of producing a copy of the letter, the transfer order cannot be quashed. So far as the other grievances of the appellants are concerned that their children are studying and at present at Seoni there are shortage of Sub Engineers and the appellants are due to retire shortly, these can be redressed by the respondent No. 2, if due representation is filed in this regard.

In view of the aforesaid, at this juncture, no merit is found in the contentions. These appeals are dismissed with liberty to the appellants to submit representations to respondent No. 2 for ventilation of the grievances and are allowed a week''s time to join their transferred place. No order as to costs.