VIJAY SINGH PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the validity, correctness and legality of the order dated 27.4.2011 issued by the Respondent No.1 by which the Petitioner is said to be transferred from Jabalpur to Satna on the post of Deputy Director, Prosecution, and in his place Respondent No.3 has been transferred from Satna to Jabalpur, on the ground that there was no such occasion to transfer the Petitioner as he was posted at Jabalpur only vide order dated 28.1.2010 issued by the Respondent No.1. It is alleged that the order impugned has been issued without there being any justified reason or the administrative requirement just to accommodate the Respondent No.3. It is contended that the Petitioner joined the place of posting only in the month of January, 2010 and has hardly completed his normal tenure but is sought to be transferred in such manner by the impugned order. Therefore, the order impugned is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

(2.) THIS Court considering the prayer made by the Petitioner issued notices to the Respondents on 29.4.2011 and from the order-sheet it appears that some sort of order granting interim relief was also dictated. However, the Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents No.1 & 2, the State, showed certain file to the Court during the lunch break and it appears that after going through the file, the Court passed an order on 29.4.2011 stating that it is not appropriate for this Court to grant stay to the Petitioner. The direction was given to the Govt. Advocate to file objection with respect to the grant of stay to the Petitioner. The case was directed to be listed on 3rd May, 2011. On this date, when the case was listed again, the file containing proposal for transfer of the Petitioner was placed before the Court and this Court was of the opinion that no interim relief was to be granted to the Petitioner. Again time was granted to file the reply with a direction that the matter be listed in the week commencing 16th May, 2011.

(3.) THE Respondent No.3 has also filed a separate return to the Writ Petition mainly describing the very same facts and stating his own conditions on account of which his representation was considered and according to the policy, he was posted at Jabalpur. It is further stated that charge was given to Respondent No.3 at Jabalpur and the Petitioner also joined at Satna on 6.5.2011. Thus, it was contended by the Respondent No.3 that there remains nothing to be adjudicated in the Writ Petition after the compliance of the order passed by the Competent Authority.