AWADESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since, both the matters are identical in nature, with the consent of parties, matters are heard together and decided by this common order. Facts are taken from W.P. No. 8192/2011. This is second visit of the petitioner to this Court. Against the transfer order dated 05/10/2011, petitioner filed W.P. No. 6815/2011, which was disposed of by this Court on 13/10/2011 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. In turn, respondents have rejected the representation by Annexure-P/1. Against which, present petition is directed.

(2.) The singular contention raised by Shri Raj Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner's seniority is maintained circle wise and by impugned transfer order, he has been transferred beyond his seniority unit, which is impermissible. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on statutory recruitment rules to show that for the purpose of promotion the zone of consideration is the particular circle and employees of that particular circle are entitled to be considered according to their seniority. Learned counsel submits that if petitioner is transferred outside his seniority unit, he will loose his seniority number and may be placed in the different seniority list at a lower number.

(3.) Per Contra, learned Government Advocate supported the order.