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.