RAJESH KUMAR SHAKYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT has been stated by learned counsel for the parties that pleadings are complete. With consent heard finally. Petitioner is working on the post of Chief Executive Officer in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. He has been transferred from Barwaha to Mhow vide order dated 28-10- 2009 (Annexure P-1) and the second respondent a Block Development Officer has been posted at his place as In-charge Chief Executive Officer. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he has been subjected to frequent transfers inasmuch as, firstly, he was transferred at his own request from Badnawar to Sonkatch on 28-2-2009, thereafter he was transferred for the reasons of administrative exigency on 29-8-2009 from Sonkatch to Barwaha which order he duly complied with on 25-9-2009. Again he has been transferred vide impugned order dated 28-10-2009 from Barwaha to Mhow. According to him the impugned transfer order is not bona fide and has been passed to accommodate and bring back the second respondent to Barwaha, who was transferred from Barwaha to Sonkatch very recently vide order dated 29-8-2009 (Annexure P-5) in the capacity of In-charge Chief Executive Officer.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the documents in my considered view the petitioner has been subjected to the frequent transfers and that the impugned transfer order has been passed to accommodate the second respondent who has been given charge of the said post by bringing him back from Sonkatch. From the documents on record it is revealed that on 28-2-2009 the petitioner was transferred from Badnawar to Sonkatch at his own request. Thereafter, before completion of normal tenure of posting at Sonkatch he was transferred vide order dated 29-8-2009 from Sonkatch to Barwaha on administrative grounds. He complied with the order and joined at Barwaha on 25-9-2009. Immediately, thereafter vide impugned order dated 28-10-2009 (Annexure P-1) he has been transferred from Barwaha to Mhow on administrative exigency. True it is that first transfer order which was passed on 28-2-2009 was at his own request but still it was a transfer. Thereafter within six months he was transferred from Sonkatch to Barwaha vide order dated 29-8-2009 on account of administrative ground. He complied with the same and joined at Barwaha on 25-9-2009. Immediately thereafter the impugned transfer order has been issued on 28-10-2009 again showing it to be for administrative exigency. What was the administrative exigency which arose within such short period for transferring the petitioner again from Barwaha to Mhow has not been explained by the respondent No. 1. On the other hand it is revealed that (though the second respondent who was in-charge Chief Executive Officer was transferred only on 29-8-2009 (Annexure P-5) from Barwaha to Sonkatch, has been brought back as In-charge Chief Executive Officer, at Barwaha in place of the petitioner vide impugned order. No explanation has also been offered as to why it was so needed administratively to call back the second respondent to work as In-charge Chief Executive Officer and to transfer the petitioner who was brought thereon substantive post only two months back that too for administrative exigency.