Nepal Singh Dodia Vs. State of M.P. and ors. - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/499229 |
| Subject | Service |
| Court | Madhya Pradesh High Court |
| Decided On | Mar-11-2003 |
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 369/2003 |
| Judge | A.M. Sapre, J. |
| Reported in | [2003(97)FLR665]; 2003(2)MPHT220 |
| Acts | Service Law |
| Appellant | Nepal Singh Dodia |
| Respondent | State of M.P. and ors. |
| Advocates: | S. Kochatta, Adv. |
| Disposition | Petition dismissed |
Excerpt:
- .....in this writ by the petitioner is his transfer order, dated 30-1-2003, whereby he is transferred from 'a' school to 'b' in neighbouring tehsil. the petitioner is a teacher.2. i find no case to interfere in the transfer order. it is not challenged on the grounds of malafide. relying upon some policy, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no transfer can take place, nor the petitioner can be transferred. it do not agree to this submission. firstly, it is the right of the employer to transfer his employee - such right being inherently available with the employer. i is indeed an incidence of service and hence, can be exercised always dependent upon the administrative exigencies. what is relied upon by the petitioner (19-3-2002) filed subsequent to filing of the writ on 6-3-2003.....
Judgment:ORDER
1. What is challenged in this writ by the petitioner is his transfer order, dated 30-1-2003, whereby he is transferred from 'A' School to 'B' in neighbouring Tehsil. The petitioner is a Teacher.
2. I find no case to interfere in the transfer order. It is not challenged on the grounds of malafide. Relying upon some policy, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that no transfer can take place, nor the petitioner can be transferred. It do not agree to this submission. Firstly, it is the right of the employer to transfer his employee - such right being inherently available with the employer. I is indeed an incidence of service and hence, can be exercised always dependent upon the administrative exigencies. What is relied upon by the petitioner (19-3-2002) filed subsequent to filing of the writ on 6-3-2003 do not in any manner indicate or restrict, or prohibit the rights of an employer to effect the transfer. It only provides the manner in which transfer can be effected and nothing more.
3. A transfer of petitioner from one School to another at a distanceof hardly 60 km. can not be said to be arbitrary. It may cause inconvenience to,but that is no ground to interfere.