Faren Singh Paraste vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 July, 2010

                                                               1


                 Writ Petition No. 8292 / 2010
02/07/2010:
      Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate
for the State.

      Petitioner is working as Class-III on the post of
Warden in Central Jail Jabalpur, District Jabalpur and by
the impugned order petitioner has been transferred from
Central Jail Jabalpur, to Sub Jail Budhar, District Rewa.
Interalia contending that the seniority of the petitioner's
cadre is maintained circle wise and petitioner if transferred
out of the circle, it would adversely effect his right in
promotion, challenge is made to the impugned action.

2.    Placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Board &
Another Vs. Rama Rajaramji Wadekar & Another,
(2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 254, and certain interim
orders passed by a Bench of this Court in W.P.
No.12027/09 on 18/03/2010 vide annexure P-3, petitioner
submits that his transfer, which will have adverse effect on
his claim for promotion is unsustainable. Apart from the
aforesaid, another ground raised is that petitioner has given
option for transfer to various other district and without
considering the same, he has been transferred to Budhar.
                                                               2


Apart from the aforesaid two grounds which was canvassed
at the time of hearing certain personal inconveniences of
the petitioner in carrying out transfer are indicated in the
body of the petition.

3.    Shri Vivek Agrawal, refutes the aforesaid and points
out that the law laid down in the case of Maharashtra
State Electricity Board (Supra) and interim order passed
will not help the petitioner for the simple reasons under the
recruitment rules namely the Prisons' Rules, 1984 has been
amended on 24/03/08 and by making the cadre a "state
cadre" and nominating the Director General of Prisons as
the appointing authority, petitioner now came in the State
Cadre and, therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner in
this writ petition are not sustainable.

4.    Shri Agrawal has produced a copy of notification
issued by M.P. Government Home Department on
24/03/08, amending Rules 200 and 211 of the Prisons'
Rules in the matter of appointment and promotion.

5.    Keeping in view the objection raised by Shri
Agrawal, which could not be refuted by learned counsel for
the petitioner the legal ground raised by the petitioner in
this writ petition is unsustainable. The principles in the case
of Maharashtra Electricity Board (supra), which was
based on the statutory rules applicable to the State
Electricity Board of Maharashtra cannot be applied when
                                                            3


the Prisons' Rules applicable in the State of Madhya
Pradesh, provide for constitution of the State Cadre for
promotion to the post in question and when the Director
General of Prison and Reforms is made the competent
authority.

6.    Accordingly, finding no case for interference on these
grounds the objection is rejected. So far as the other
grounds are concerned, pertaining to non consideration of
petitioner's option, on the aforesaid ground interference by
a writ court cannot be made. It is for respondents No.1 & 2

to consider the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, finding no case for interference on the
ground raised in this writ petition, the same is dismissed
with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of the
departmental remedies available.

(Rajendra Menon)
Judge
ss*