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.

Amar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Amar Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Oct 31, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1051717

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

Amar Singh

Advocate Shri. V.P.Singh

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

amar singh versus state of m.p.& ors.writ petition no.18159 ”31. 10.2012 shri v.p.singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri s.s.bisen, learned government advocate for the state. petitioner is working as panchayat secretary and has been transferred from one gram panchayat to another in the same district rewa under the same janpad panchayat teonthar. challenging the said transfer order petitioner earlier approached this court in w.p.no.11763/2012 and on 8.8.2012 a bench of this court found that on the ground of personal inconvenience of petitioner interference into the matter is not called for. however, disposed of the writ petition directing the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of petitioner. in the earlier writ petition findings recorded by this court was that the impugned order of transfer is not passed in violation of any statutory provision not the same suffers from vice of malafide. not the representation of petitioner is rejected, therefore, petitioner is again before this court. as already indicated hereinabove transfer in question is not challenged on the ground of any statutory provisions being violated or malafide made out, transfer is only challenged on the ground of personal inconvenience of petitioner due to his ailment, these factors have been considered by the competent authority and representation 2 has been rejected. once the representation is rejected by the competent administrative authority, this court in a case of transfer will not sit over the same as if it is exercising further appellate jurisdiction. accordingly, without interfering on the grounds raised the petition is disposed of. (rajendra menon) judge ss*

Full Judgment

Amar Singh versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.18159 ”

31. 10.2012 Shri V.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State.

Petitioner is working as Panchayat Secretary and has been transferred from one Gram Panchayat to another in the same district Rewa under the same Janpad Panchayat Teonthar.

Challenging the said transfer order petitioner earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.11763/2012 and on 8.8.2012 a Bench of this Court found that on the ground of personal inconvenience of petitioner interference into the matter is not called for.

However, disposed of the writ petition directing the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of petitioner.

In the earlier writ petition findings recorded by this Court was that the impugned order of transfer is not passed in violation of any statutory provision not the same suffers from vice of malafide.

not the representation of petitioner is rejected, therefore, petitioner is again before this Court.

As already indicated hereinabove transfer in question is not challenged on the ground of any statutory provisions being violated or malafide made out, transfer is only challenged on the ground of personal inconvenience of petitioner due to his ailment, these factors have been considered by the competent authority and representation 2 has been rejected.

Once the representation is rejected by the competent administrative authority, this Court in a case of transfer will not sit over the same as if it is exercising further appellate jurisdiction.

Accordingly, without interfering on the grounds raised 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