High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 11 MP CK 0090

Ramsajeevan Patel vs State of M.P. and Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 25 November 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tarun Kumar Kaushal, J · K.K. Lahoti, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
W.A. No. 1226/11

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 360 words
1.

This appeal is directed against an order dated 14.11.2011 in W.P. No. 19014/11 by which a writ petition assailing the transfer order of the appellant by which he was transferred from Primary School Raksa Vikas Khand Jaithari, District Anuppur to Primary School Khalhedhawai, Vikas Khan Pusprajgarh in the same district was dismissed.

2.

Aforesaid order has been assailed by the appellant on following grounds:

(1) That the appellant was performing his duties in the election work, so he could not have been transferred by the respondents.

(2) That, four posts at Raksa are lying vacant so the appellant ought to have been accommodated at Raksa itself where in place of regular teachers, teacher who are working were appointed on contract basis.

3.

It is submitted that on the aforesaid grounds, transfer order may be interfered with.

4.

From the perusal of the record, we find that appellant was transferred on 7.6.2011, the date on which he was not performing the election duties, but subsequently he was assigned the election work, so on the date of transfer, he was not discharging the election work. Apart from this, even if appellant was discharging election work, then it could have been a ground for the Election Commission to seek explanation from the concerned authority, but on this ground, transfer order can not be interfered.

5.

So far as contention of the appellant that at Raksa, he was a regular teacher and after transfer of the appellant, only four teachers working on contract will remain which is against the public interest, is concerned, it is for the authority to look into this aspect and if the authority finds that a regular teacher is required, then the authority may pass an appropriate order in this regard, but on this ground also transfer order cannot be interfered.

6.

In view of the aforesaid we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. However, appellant shall be at liberty to take recourse of filing a representation against the transfer order which shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.

7.

No order as to costs.

8.

C.C. as per rules.