Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Justice Vandana Kasrekar directed the respondents to decide regarding the representation of the petitioner and hence stayed the impugned order.
In the present case, the petitioner approached to the HC challenging transfer order that transferred his services from Primary School, Bherupada to Primary School, Himmatkhedi. The counsel for the petitioner challenged that the transfer order was issued in the middle of the academic year. Regarding this the counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case Director of School Education v. O. Karuppa Thevan, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 666 in which the apex court believed that an employee could not be transferred in the middle of an academic session unless some sort of an administrative urgency arose. Also the transfer order handed to the petitioner did not mention any administrative emergency. The Court stated “He further submits that in the present case, it has not been mentioned in the transfer order, for which administrative exigency, the petitioner has been transferred. He further submits that being aggrieved by the said transfer order, the petitioner has already submitted a representation ( Annexure-P/6) dated 12/12/2019 before the respondent/s and prays that an appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent/s to consider the same within a period of one month.”
With the above presentation of facts, the HC decided that the operation of the transfer order would be stayed and directed the respondent to reconsider the disposition of the transfer order and the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.
Kailash Chand v. State of M.P., WP No. 27626 of 2019
86540
103860
630
114
59824