MATADIN BHOJ Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged his transfer from Tahsil Karera to Tahsil Pohri on the ground that it is at a distance of 90 Kms. Petitioner's wife is suffering from sugar. He has not completed three years at the presence place, and, therefore, the transfer is contrary to Clause 9.10 of the transfer policy. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(2.) CLAUSE 9.10 of the transfer policy is directory in nature. The entire policy is an executive instruction and does not have any binding force. The transfer order can be interfered with only when it runs contrary to the statutory provision, changes the service conditions of an employee to his detriment, issued by an incompetent authority or the transfer order is proved to be a malafide one, etc.

(3.) IT is true that whenever a person is transferred, it causes inconvenience. However, personal inconvenience and ailment etc. are no ground of transfer. I am not inclined to interfere in the transfer matter. However, this will not preclude the petitioner to avail the departmental remedy pursue his representation. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.