ARVIND TIWARI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER a Reserve Inspector of the Home (Police)Department of the State Government posted at Indore in the capacity of Inspector (Traffic) has challenged his transfer order dated 22. 1. 2009 (Annexure P-13) by which he has been transferred as Reserve Inspector District, Sidhi.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the impugned transfer order (Annexure p-13) is violative of the policy decision taken by the State Government vide circular dated 14. 2. 2007 (Annexure P-14), providing in the Clause 2 for the minimum period of posting of 2 years of various posts including the post held by the petitioner. In the said circular dated 14. 2. 2007 transfer of such police officers prior to completion of minimum 2 years period is permissible only if any of the conditions enumerated in the said circular dated 14. 2. 2007 is existing. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the impugned order has been issued by the Police Establishment board {for short the Board} without ratification/approval of the State Government and as such the same is violative of Clause 3 of the said circular. It is farther case of the petitioner that the sanctioned cadre strength of the Reserve Inspector as per M. P. Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000 is 71. As per the Government Circular dated 7. 9. 2000 (Annexure P-2) the reserve Inspectors who have completed 5 years of substantive service as Reserve inspector shall be available for their posting either as an Inspector (Traffic) or reserve Inspector. He averred that the State Government issued yet another circular dated 27. 5. 2008 (Annexure P-3) providing that out of total Cadre strength of Reserve Inspector not more than 33% shall be posted as Inspector (Traffic ). Thus, according to the petitioner 23 incumbents can be posted as Inspector (Traffic)and as such petitioner's posting as Inspector (Traffic) at Indore being in consonance of the circulars of the State Government he could not have been sent back as reserve Inspector, ignoring the need of control of Traffic situation of city of Indore. It has been also stated that there is no administrative exigency in transferring him at Sidhi at the cost of one administrative exigency and need of Inspector (Traffic)at Indore. According to him, he has been subjected to frequent transfers and the issuance of the impugned transfer order is an arbitrary exercise of powers on the part of the respondents.

(3.) THE respondents filed reply and have stated that the impugned transfer order (Annexure P-13) has been passed on administrative grounds. It has been passed by the Board taking into consideration the administrative exigency that at Sidhi where the petitioner has been transferred, the post of Reserve Inspector was lying vacant. It was noticed by the Board that Sidhi District where the petitioner has been transferred as a Reserve Inspector is a sensitive place, and in the Assembly election held in 2008 in the absence of posting of the Reserve Inspector the administration had to face great difficulties. In order to overcome such situation during the forthcoming Parliamentary Elections of 2009 the petitioner has been transferred to Sidhi and posted on his substantial post as Reserve Inspector. The respondents have placed on record the minutes of the meeting held by the Board as Annexure R-1. Thus, the case of the respondents is that the petitioner's transfer order is based on administrative grounds and the State has the total discretion to pass such transfer order for achieving the administrative convenience.