Radheshyam Mandloi Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

WA, 382 of 2021, Judgment Date: Jun 09, 2021

Law laid down -

Service Law – Transfer – Chief Municipal Officer was transferred from Khargone to Ratlam and in-lieu thereof, respondent No.2, a Revenue Inspector was transferred as incharge CMO within six months of previous transfer of the appellant. The transfer order was held to be a colorable exercise of power.

M.P. State Municipal Service (Executive) Rules, 1973 - As per Second Schedule appended to these Rules, there are three categories of CMOs namely CMO Class A Municipality, Class B Municipality and Class C Municipality. Appellant is entitled to occupy the post of CMO Class A Municipality whereas respondent No.2 is a Revenue Inspector in Class C Municipality. He has to climb in the ladder from Class C to Class B and then to Class A to be in the feeder post for promotion as CMO. Thus, he was unsuitable to occupy the post of CMO.

Transfer – Administrative exigency/interest – A person substantively holding the post of CMO has been appointed and trained to discharge the duties of said post. He holds a sensitive and responsible post. He cannot be substituted by an unsuitable person who is not even holding the feeder post. It is incomprehensible as to how such a transfer whereby post of regular CMO is directed to be manned by a Revenue Inspector can be said to be in an “administrative exigency” or “interest”.

“Administrative exigency” or “administrative interest” - are not magic words. Neither is carpet under which anything can be swept. In a case of this nature, the reasons for such transfer must be discernible which could not be pointed out by the government counsel. Hence, transfer order is set aside.

Radheshyam Mandloi Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.