DAYARAM KODLE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the petitioner assailing the order dtd. 8/12/2025 contained in Annexure P/11 by which, the representation of the petitioner has been turned down.

(2.) It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that this is the third visit of the petitioner to this Court. Previously also assailing the order of transfer dtd. 17/6/2025 contained in Annexure P/1, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a petition vide W.P. No.23355/2025 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dtd. 8/7/2025 with a direction to the respondent therein to take decision on the petitioner's representation and till a decision on the petitioner's represenation, interim protection was also granted to him. However, the representation of the petitioner was turned down vide order dtd. 7/8/2025 contained in Annexure P/3. The said representation was turned down in a mechanical manner; therefore, the petitioner was pitchforked to file another petition before this Court vide W.P.No.32549/2025. This Court has quashed the order dtd. 7/8/2025 by which the representation of the petitioner was turned down and again remitted back the matter to the concerned respondent. However, unfortunately, again the representation has been turned down by the authority by a non-speaking order. The authority has dealt with the grounds which were not even taken recourse to by the petitioner in the representation, hence, the impugned order is unsustainable. It is further contended by the counsel that in terms of the transfer policy, the Panchayat Secretaries who have already put in more than 10 years at a particular place, should be transferred first. However, to the misfortune of the petitioner who joined at Gram Panchayat Kamthi vide order dtd. 7/7/2023, has been shifted again by the impugned order dtd. 8/12/2025 contained in Annexure P/11 and therefore, counsel submits that the same deserves to be quashed.

(3.) The counsel for the State submits that in pursuance of order passed by this Court, the Authority has considered and rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner and the order of transfer having been passed in view of administrative exigency, no interference with the same is warranted.