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.

Sanjay Tambe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Sanjay Tambe vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Oct 10, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1049289

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

Sanjay Tambe

Advocate Shri. Deepak Awasthy

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

sanjay tambe versus state w.p.no.17308/2012 10-10-2012 shri deepak awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri s.s.bisen, learned govt. adv.for the respondents on advance notice. petitioner is working as sub engineer in janpad panchayat, ashta, district sehore. vide order annexure p/1 dated 13.7.2012 petitioner was transferred from ashta, district sehore to district balaghat. challenge to the order of transfer was made by filing a writ petition before this court being w.p.no.11519/2012 (s) and a bench of this court vide annexure p/7 dated 7.8.2012 found that the transfer is not vitiated and no interference is called for. finding the petitioner can approach the higher authorities for redressal of his grievance, liberty was granted to the petitioner to submit a representation. representation submitted by the petitioner is also rejected and therefore, the petitioner is again before this court. as already indicated herein above in the earlier writ petition, this court has already refused to interfere into the matter, not interference is sought for by contending that representation has not been properly decided, ailment of his wife is not taken note of and petitioner is not granted appropriate posting. on the aforesaid grounds, no interference can be made by this court as it is for the competent authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner and on such consideration representation having been rejected, no further indulgence is called for. petition is therefore dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge mrs.mishra

Full Judgment

sanjay tambe versus state W.P.No.17308/2012 10-10-2012 Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt.

Adv.for the respondents on advance notice.

Petitioner is working as Sub Engineer in Janpad Panchayat, Ashta, District Sehore.

Vide order Annexure P/1 dated 13.7.2012 petitioner was transferred from Ashta, District Sehore to District Balaghat.

Challenge to the order of transfer was made by filing a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.11519/2012 (s) and a Bench of this Court vide Annexure P/7 dated 7.8.2012 found that the transfer is not vitiated and no interference is called for.

Finding the petitioner can approach the higher authorities for redressal of his grievance, liberty was granted to the petitioner to submit a representation.

Representation submitted by the petitioner is also rejected and therefore, the petitioner is again before this Court.

As already indicated herein above in the earlier writ petition, this Court has already refused to interfere into the matter, not interference is sought for by contending that representation has not been properly decided, ailment of his wife is not taken note of and petitioner is not granted appropriate posting.

On the aforesaid grounds, no interference can be made by this Court as it is for the competent authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner and on such consideration representation having been rejected, no further indulgence is called for.

Petition is therefore dismissed.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Mrs.mishra

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial