BALVESH KAURAV Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has questioned legality, validity and propriety of impugned transfer order dated 25/02/2014 (Annexure P/1) by which petitioner has been transferred from Sub Health Centre, Jigna, District Datia to the Office of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Guna on administrative ground in the capacity of Lady Health Visitor (Multi purpose Worker Female).

(2.) INTER alia contending that by the impugned transfer order, the seniority of petitioner who is working as Female Health Worker being maintained at district level, shall be adversely affected due to inter district transfer, secondly; the impugned transfer is against the guide lines of transfer policy for the year 2012 13 relating to transfer of public servants framed by State and thirdly; the impugned transfer though purportedly on administrative ground but in fact, is effectuated by malice attributable to respondent No.5 as a sequel to criminal complaint filed in the Court of Special Judge, Datia against respondent No.5 and others by the husband of the petitioner. On these premises, prayed for setting aside the impugned transfer order.

(3.) RESPONDENTS ' have filed counter affidavit wherein it is contended that the petitioner is working on the transferable post of Lady Health Visitor and can be subjected to transfer anywhere in the State in terms of service rules applicable to her. It is further contended that petitioner is continuing at Sub Health Centre, Jigna, District Datia since 09/05/1988 upto the date of passing impugned transfer order and for more than 25 years, she has remained at particular place. She does not have any vested right to continue at one place. By transferring from Sub Health Centre, Jigna to District Guna (inter district transfer), petitioner's seniority shall not be adversely affected as in terms of service rules, petitioner's seniority is maintained at divisional level, as such contention of petitioner is incorrect. It is further stated that impugned transfer order has been passed keeping in mind the administrative necessity and there is no violation of guidelines of transfer policy framed by State as alleged. More so, the work and conduct of petitioner was not found to be satisfactory at Jigna as number of complaints as regards her work reported to the superior officers. Her continuance at Jigna under such circumstances was found to be not in public interest as health services to female, children and other patients in the area have an adverse effect. As regards mala fides, it is stated that same are factually incorrect and devoid of substance. Allegations are based on concoction and maneuver with ulterior motive to achieve collateral purpose to avoid transfer order. The allegations of malice are figment of wild imaginations of petitioner without any foundation or basis. Petitioner was transferred vide order dated 13/07/2012 from Sub Health Centre, Jigna to the office of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sheopur. However, with the intervention and recommendation of respondent No.5, the said transfer order was cancelled vide order dated 14/08/2013 (Annexure P/11 at page 47) after alleged complaint has been filed before the Special Judge, Datia on 02/04/2013. This belies the false and frivolous allegations of malice alleged by petitioner against respondent No.5 that as a sequel to filing of the complaint by husband of petitioner, she has been transferred by the impugned transfer order. It is further submitted that petitioner had preferred a writ petition, W.P.No.5301/2012(S) challenging her transfer order dated 13/07/2012 and in the writ petition not a single allegation was either made against respondent No.5 attributing malice or otherwise. The said writ petition was dismissed by writ Court vide order dated 01/08/2012, thereafter, she had filed W.A.No.486/2012 and a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24/08/2012 decided it with a direction to authorities to consider and decide the representation of petitioner. Complying with aforesaid direction of Court, representation of petitioner was considered and rejected by a detailed speaking order on 29/12/2012 (Annexure P/10). The order itself reflects that number of complaints were received as regards dereliction and negligence of duty on the part of petitioner due to which genral public health services were adversely effected. The respondents' have also annexed a number of complaints received against the work and conduct of the petitioner as Annexure R/1 (colloquial). Thereafter, it appears that petitioner had approached respondent No.5 and it is with his intervention and recommendation, petitioner's transfer order dated 13/07/2012 from Sub Health Centre, Jigna, District Datia to the office of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sheopur was cancelled. As such, attributing mala fides on the part of respondent No.5 to justify challenge made to the impugned transfer order is nothing but a vain attempt to seek indulgence of this Court which is wholly unwarranted and uncalled for.