SATYENDRA KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, challenging his transfer order dated 20/09/2019 (Annexure P1) on the ground that it has been issued after the ban has been imposed and the impugned order of transfer is bad because it amounts to frequent transfer.

(2.) It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working on the post of Revenue Inspector. Earlier, he was posted in Circle Bagchini, Tahsil Joura, District Morena and by order dated 26/10/2018 (Annexure P2) he was transferred from Circle Bagchini, Tahsil Joura, District Morena to Circle Sujarma, Tahsil Kailaras, District Morena. Again, by order dated 21/12/2018 (Annexure P3), he was transferred from Circle Sujarma, Tahsil Kailaras to Circle Chinnoni Karera, Tahsil Joura, District Morena. Now, by the impugned order dated 20/09/2019 (Annexure P1), he has been again transferred from District Morena to District Sheopur which amounts to frequent transfer.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.