Tilak Singh and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 11.11.2016 (Annexure- P/4) and 16.12.2016 (Annexure-P/6).

Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced singular contention. Shri A.P. Singh submitted that the petitioner is working as Assistant Director, Horticulture on probation. She has been transferred to take charge of a higher post i.e. Dy.

Director, Horticulture, District Betul. It is urged that during the probationary period, the petitioner cannot be transferred to take charge of a higher post.

The respondents opposed the said contention. The stand of the department is that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative exigency. There is no prohibition in any rule that an employee working on the probation cannot be transferred or cannot be given current charge of higher post. It is submitted that no statutory rules are violated and hence no interference is made.

No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision which prohibits the transfer of an employee during her probationary period. Similarly, no provision or law is cited to show that an employee cannot be transferred to work on a higher post on current charge basis.

The transfer order can be interfered with if it runs contrary to any statutory provision (not policy guidelines), issued by an incompetent authority, changes the service condition of an employee to her detriment or proved to be mala fide. No such ingredients are available in the present case. The posting of the petitioner on current charge basis is based on administrative exigency and it is a stop gap arrangement. Needless to mention that whenever regular incumbent will be available, the post of Dy. Director will be occupied by him.

In this view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere in the present case. Petition is dismissed.