SWAYAMPRAKASH JAIN Vs. M.P.E.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT was strenuously urged by the learned counsel that the guidelines contained in Annexure 2, have been violated by the respondents. Placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in AIR'1993 SC 1236 (Rajendra Roi v. Union of India), it was contended that the order of transfer Anx. 4, be cancelled or set aside. The petitioner has also been relieved as per Anx. 6 and he was supposed to join his duty on his place of posting. In such matters ordinary the Court do not interfere unless the order is shown to be malafide. Such is not the case.

(2.) SO far compassionate ground is concerned, the petitioner has placed on record a bunch of documents showing that the boy is mentally retarded. A certificate issued by the local physician is also placed on record. This mental retardation needs prolong treatment. It is significant to note that the certificates dated 1.7.93 and 5.7.93 have been obtained by the petitioner only after receiving the transfer order. With all sympathies for the mental retardedness, it does not stand to reason as to how it helps cancellation of petitioner's order of transfer. The only suggestion contained in the petition is that the boy is required to be often taken to Bombay for treatment. Even the certificate 1.7.93 issued by a doctor from Bombay, does not say that he was ever being taken before for treatment or consultation; nor is there any other material placed on record to show that he was taken to Bombay for such treatment. It is only on 1.7.93 as per certificate placed by the petitioner that the boy was taken for examining and treatment to a neurosurgeon at Bombay. These certificates, probably tailored for the occasion, the transfer order cannot be cancelled by this Court in its powers exercised under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It is for the authority concerned to take into account these factors; but as has been noted above, the two medical certificates filed are all subsequent to the issuance of transfer order. The petitioner instead of approaching the authorities approached this Court seeking stay of his transfer on humanitarian consideration in hot haste.

(3.) IT is open to him if he so desires to approach the authorities to consider his case on humanatarian ground. It is not to suggest that the transfer should be cancelled on this ground. AIR 1993 SC 1236 distinguished. Petition dismissed.