RAMSIYA Vs. ANURADHA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This W.P. under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking indulgence in the matter of relieving consequent upon the transfer order dated 15.5.2015.

(2.) The petitioner working as Block Extension Officer has been transferred from District Shivpuri to office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Ujjain. This order was not to be given effect due to Agriculture Mahotsav for the period 25.5.2015 to 15.06.2015 as indicated in the order itself. As such, despite transfer, the petitioner has continued at Vikas Khand, Pohri. Learned counsel contends that while serving he was assigned the election duty by order dated 28.5.2014 (Annexure P-2) for one year. He further submits that now he has also been given further extension to perform election duty (Annexure P-8). Learned counsel contends that he had approached this Court by filing a writ petition No. 3399/2015. The same stood disposed of by order dated 15.6.2015. This Court directed the respondents to decide petitioner’s representation. It appears that the respondents have decided the representation on 9.11.2015 (Annexure P-1). The respondent No.2 has opined that petitioner’s transfer by Annexure P-1 was pursuant to Clause 8.7 of the State transfer policy for the year 2015-2016 on directions of Chief Secretary for filling up the vacant post at Vikas Khand Ujjain, accordingly petitioner was transferred. The circular dated 24.9.2011 referred to by the petitioner did not find favour for the reasons that there is no restriction imposed on the department for not transferring the employee under the transfer policy in the event when the elections are already over. Challenging the aforesaid decision of the authority, learned counsel contends that he has again been assigned the election duty by referring to Annexure P-8.

(3.) Having perused Annexure P-8, first of all there is no order as such of the competent authority assigning the petitioner's duty under election work. There is nothing on record to suggest that any election is to be held in the year 2016 and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that petitioner is posted for election duty. Learned counsel contends that election work, as a matter of fact, is of permanent nature and, therefore, once the petitioner is assigned the election duty then he cannot be subjected to transfer by virtue of the fact being involved in the election duty for all time to come in the entire service tenure. As such, according to petitioner, he enjoys immunity against transfer despite the fact that he is serving on a transferable post in the State Government.