02.07.2010.
Shri Mrigendra Singh for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, for the
respondents, on advance notice.
Petitioner is an Assistant Draughtsman in the Gramin
Yantriki Seva Sambhaj, Umaria. By the impugned order-dated
15.6.2010 – Annexure P/1, he has been transferred to Chitrangi in
District Singrauli.
Contending that petitioner is a patient of diabetes and high
blood pressure and if he is transferred to Singrauli, he will not have
any facility for treatment and further pointing out that petitioner is
transferred at the instance of respondent No.4, a Minister in the
Department, challenge is made to the order of transfer.
Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner,
pointed out that in the order of transfer, the dispatch number
reference is made of a word “Minister”, which indicates that the
transfer is at the instance of the Minister and, therefore,
unsustainable.
Respondents represented by Shri Vivek Agrawal refute the
aforesaid and point out that merely because the word “Minister” is
indicated in the dispatch number, that by itself would not mean that
the transfer is at the instance of the Minister. It is submitted that the
petitioner has not pointed out any malafides in the matter and is
seeking interference only on the grounds of his personal
inconvenience and on such grounds, it is argued by Shri Agrawal
that judicial review of an order of transfer is not permissible.
2
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
consideration of the facts that have come on record, it is clear that
petitioner has only challenged the transfer on the grounds of breach
of any transfer policy or malafides. The so called malafide of the
Minster is not apparent from the record. No allegations of malafide
or the facts constituting the malafides are available. The only
allegations are in paragraph 6.3 and 6.4, which are vague and
pertain to the reference of the word “Minister” in the dispatch
number. The allegations of malafide are not established from the
averments made in this petition and, therefore, on such grounds
interference into the order of transfer cannot be made.
The other grounds raised are the personal inconveniences of
the petitioner and breach of transfer policy. These are grounds
which are to be appreciated by the competent authority of the State
Government and it is not for a writ court to interfere on such
consideration when petitioner is being transferred after completing
his tenure posting in the interest of administration.
Accordingly, finding no case for interference on the grounds
raised, the petition is dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON)
JUDGE
Aks/-