High Court Madhya Pradesh High Court

Laxman Prasad Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 December, 2010

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxman Prasad Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 December, 2010
                                                                1


                Writ Petition No. 17737 / 2010
09/12/2010:
      Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri J.K. Jain, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the
respondents.

Petitioner who is working as Gramin Vistar Adhikari, in
Vikas Khand Teekamgarh, District Tikamgarh has challenged
the order dated 25/11/2010, by which he has been transferred
from the present place of posting to District Sagar.

Challenge to the transfer order is made only on the
ground that petitioner is not a surplus employee, without
considering his seniority and without determining the
surplusage in the department properly, he has been transferred.
Interalia contending that the policy with regard to declaring of a
person as surplus is not properly taken note of and the petitioner
is transferred illegally, even though he is not surplus in the
department or in the office where he is working. Challenge is
made to the impugned action.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
consideration of the fact that has come on record it is clear that
factual dispute with regard to fact as to whether petitioner is in
excess of the available post sanctioned in the office where he is
working has to be determined and the question as to whether
the policy dated 20/04/2010 with regard to declaring a person
as surplus is violated or not is also to be adjudicated. This
factual disputed question can be more properly adjudicated by
2

the respondent No.1 who is in-charge of the department and in
that view of matter, for the present, this Court does not deem it
appropriate to interfere in the matter. Interest of justice would
be made in case respondent No.1, Secretary of the department
concerned is directed to examine the grievance of petitioner
with regard to breach of policy dated 20/04/2010, if any, and
take a decision.

Accordingly, on petitioner’s filing a certified copy of
this order within one week before the competent authority,
the authority shall decide the same within one month
thereof and communicate decision to the petitioner.

Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, status-
quo as it exiting today shall be maintained.

The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid.
Certified copy as per rules.

(Rajendra Menon)
Judge
ss *