SUNITA PATEL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the validity, legality and propriety of the order dtd. 4/10/2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Tahsil Beena to Tahsil Shahgadh.

(2.) Arguments on behalf of the petitioner is that it is a frequent transfer case, but the document Annexure P/2 reflects that it was an absorption order of the petitioner and pursuant to the same she was posted. She has been transferred on an administrative exigency for the first time by the impugned order. It is submitted that a representation (Annexure P/3) has been filed showing personable inconvenience which is pending consideration. An innocuous prayer is made to direct the respondents/authorities to consider and decide the pending representation expeditiously.

(3.) Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner's transfer is on administrative grounds and as the transfer is a service condition; therefore, the petitioner is duty bound to comply with the transfer order. Virtually, no ground has been raised except the personal inconvenience which would be caused to the petitioner. As per settled legal proposition of law, the transfer order can be interfered only in exception circumstances as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of cases.