ARTI KHEDKAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on the question of admission.

(2.) THE petitioner is working on the post of Chief Municipal Officer in the Urban Administration Development Department of the State Government. She has been transferred vide order dated 27.2.2009 (Annexure P-2) issued by the first respondent from Rajgarh, District Dhar to Nepanagar, District Burhanpur. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) SHRI M.S. Dwivedi learned panel lawyer appearing for the respondents on the other hand argued that the petitioner is working on the post of Chief Municipal Officer at Rajgarh, District Dhar since 31.5.2006 she has completed almost three years period of her normal tenure of posting at one place. He pointed out that the petitioner has already been relieved in pursuance to the impugned transfer order. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that she is entitled to continue at Rajgarh District Dhar in view of the posting of her husband in Dhar Circle vide order dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure P-3), he submits that in that regard the petitioner has to approach the competent authority of the respondents by submitted representation in that regard. He submits that if a representation is submitted by the petitioner it shall be appropriately decided. He further submits that assigning work in regard to preparation of voter lists and the Awareness Programme about E.V.M. can be no ground to interfere into the impugned transfer order. He also submits that the petitioner has been transferred on 27.2.2009 prior to the issuance of the notification declaring the election programme of the Parliamentary elections and in the circumstances there was no necessity on the part of the first respondent to have sought permission from the election commission for issuance of the impugned transfer order. He further submits that since no one has been posted at her place the petitioner's transfer which is on administrative exigencies, needs no interference.