N.P. Malviya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Judgment:

N.P.Malviya versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No. 16972 / 2012 10.10.2012: Shri N.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri   Rajesh   Tiwari,   learned   Government   Advocate,   for  the respondents/State.

Petitioner   is   working   as   a   Rural   Agricultural  Development   Officer   and   vide   order   dated   13.7.2012  petitioner   was   transferred   from   Block   Development   Ashta,  District Sehore to District Katni.  Challenging   order   of   transfer   petitioner   approached  this   Court   in   W.P.  No.11303/2012(s)   and   on   7.8.2012   a  Bench   of   this   Court   found   that   the   grievance   made   by  petitioner   with   regard   to   his   transfer   is   No.  such   which  warrants   interference   by   the   Court.

  Accordingly   after   taking  note   of   the   legal   principles   as   is   laid   down   in   various  judgments   referred   to   in   the   order   Annexure   P­5   dated  7.8.2012  this Court found that no  interference can be  made.  However,   liberty   is   granted   to   represent   and   the   competent  authority   was   directed   to   consider   the   personal  inconveniences   of   petitioner   and   decide   his   representation.  The   representation   is   rejected   and,   therefore,   petitioner   is  again before this Court.

Inter   alia   contending   that   as   personal   grievance   with  regard   to   working   of   his   wife   in   Ashta   has   No.  been  considered and decision taken is not proper, seeking posting  in   any   place   nearby   Ashta,   petitioner   has   again   approached  this Court.  Transfer is purely administrative function and it is well  settled   principle   of   law   that   an   administrative   order   can   be  2 interfered   with   only   on   the   ground   of   statutory   provisions  being   shown   to   be   violated   or   malafide   made   out.

  In   earlier  writ petition this Court had found that transfer is an incident  of   service   and,   therefore,   the   Court   refused   to   interfere   into  the   matter.

  Once   the   grounds   raised   in   the   writ   petition   are  No.  such   on   the   basis   of   which   judicial   review   of   an  administrative   order   of   transfer   is   permissible   and   the  representation   is   considered   and   rejected,   no   further  indulgence into the matter can be made by this Court, as this  Court does not exercise any further appellate jurisdiction.

Accordingly,   no   case   is   made   out   for   any   further  indulgence into the matter, the petition is dismissed.   (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/­