1 [CASE NUMBER] THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH [CASE NUMBER] ([PRECEDENT] Gwalior, Dated : 15.03.2019 Shri MPS Raghuvanshi, counsel for the petitioner. Shri [ENTITY], Government Advocate for the respondents No 1
to 3/ State.
This petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] has been filed against the order dated 09.03.2019 by which the respondent No. 4 has been posted as SDO, PWD, Sub-Division Pichhore District Shivpuri.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that by order dated 16.07.2017, the petitioner was transferred as Incharge SDO, PWD, Sub-Division, Pichhore, District Shivpuri and thus, it is clear that post of SDO, PWD Pichhore, District Shivpuri is not vacant, but still the respondent No. 4 has been posted there.
Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.
By order dated 16.07.2017, the petitioner was merely posted as Incharge SDO and his substantive post is Sub-Engineer. Thus, it is clear that it was merely a time gap arrangement and now by order dated 09.03.2019, respondent No. 4, who is Assistant Engineer, has been posted as SDO, PWD, Sub-Division Pichhore, District Shivpuri. Merely because the petitioner was working as Incharge SDO does not [CASE NUMBER] mean that the regular post of the SDO was not vacant.
It is next contended by the petitioner that the petitioner was not transferred in the capacity of Sub-Engineer and he was transferred in the capacity of Incharge SDO, therefore, it should be held that the post of SDO was filled up.
The submission made by the petitioner cannot be accepted. A person whose substantive post is Sub-Engineer cannot be promoted to the post of SDO without any promotion order. In fact by order dated 16.07.2017 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was merely posted as Incharge SDO and the said post cannot be equated with the promotion of the petitioner.
The scope of judicial review of transfer under [SECTION] of the [ACT] has been settled by the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and it has been held that the transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under [SECTION] unless the court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders.
Thus, considering the contentions made by the counsel for the [CASE NUMBER] petitioner in the light of the law, laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion, that no case is made out warranting any interference in the matter.
Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby Dismissed.
([ENTITY]) Judge [ENTITY] 2019.03.19 18:34:05 +05'30'