Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Beniram Edpache Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Beniram Edpache vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Oct 08, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1048608

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Beniram Edpache

Advocate Shri. Manish Tiwari

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

beniram edpache versus state of m.p.& anr. 1 writ petition no.16298 ”8. 10.2012: shri manish tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri sanjeev kumar singh, learned panel lawyer for respondent/state, on advance notice. petitioner is working as head master and has been transferred from one school to another in the same district. the transfer order was passed more than 3 months back on 13.7.2012 and records indicate that the grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are not such on the basis of which judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is permissible. learned counsel invites my attention to various orders passed under similar circumstances whereby representations were directed to be decided and interim protection be permit the employee to work till representation is decided was ordered. in the present case, transfer order is passed more than 3 months back on 13.7.2012 and petitioner has filed this writ petition not after more than 2½ months, that being so, no such benefit as has been granted to employees who came to this court within reasonable time be granted to the petitioner. that apart, as transfer has not been challenged on any statutory rules or regulations shown to be violated or any malafide established, for the present no case is made out for interference into the matter. accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue with the departmental remedies available, the petition is disposed of. (rajendra menon) judge ss*

Full Judgment

Beniram Edpache versus State of M.P.& Anr.

1 Writ Petition No.16298 ”

8. 10.2012: Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State, on advance notice.

Petitioner is working as Head Master and has been transferred from one school to another in the same district.

The transfer order was passed more than 3 months back on 13.7.2012 and records indicate that the grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are not such on the basis of which judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is permissible.

Learned counsel invites my attention to various orders passed under similar circumstances whereby representations were directed to be decided and interim protection be permit the employee to work till representation is decided was ordered.

In the present case, transfer order is passed more than 3 months back on 13.7.2012 and petitioner has filed this writ petition not after more than 2½ months, that being so, no such benefit as has been granted to employees who came to this Court within reasonable time be granted to the petitioner.

That apart, as transfer has not been challenged on any statutory rules or regulations shown to be violated or any malafide established, for the present no case is made out for interference into the matter.

Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue with the departmental remedies available, the petition is disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss*

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial