MP HC | Court declined to interfere in the posting of an employee; remarked that High Court is not an appellate authority for such grievances

Madhya Pradesh High Court: G.S. Ahluwalia, J., dismissed the petition finding no ground for interference in the impugned order.

The petitioner has approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby she has challenged the impugned order dated 15-06-2020. The petitioner who is holding the position of ANM has been transferred from Sub-Health Centre, Bhageh to Sub-Health Center, Chhimak.

Counsel for the petitioner, Prashant Sharma has relied heavily on the circular dated 6-9-2018 issued by the Secretariat Health Services, State of M.P. stating that no ANM should be attached to any other health organisation or headquarter other than their original place of posting.

The counsel for the respondent, Anmol Khedkar has contended that the transfer was requested by the petitioner herself and that she has been transferred within the tehsil.

While perusing the facts and averments made by the parties, the Court observed that the petitioner has completed 7 years of service at Sub-Health Centre, Bhageh and that petitioner’s services are required at Sub-Health Centre, Chhimak in wake of the ongoing Covid19 pandemic. The crux of the aforementioned circular is that ANM’s should continue working at their places of posting and they should not be attached to any other headquarter or health organisation. The circular in no way acts as a roadblock in the process of transfer of an ANM. Besides, the petitioner has been transferred within the same tehsil.

Eventually, the Court held that it cannot act as an appellate authority in cases of routine transfer or transfer based on an exigency. Decisions revolving around the transfer of employees fall within the domain of the authorities. No employee can make demands for posting at a particular place.

Hence, the Court dismissed the petition in the situation where there’s an absence of justifiable reasons for interference with the impugned order.[Sarita Vimal v. State of M.P., 2020 SCC OnLine MP 1597, decided on 22-07-2020]


Yashvardhan Shrivastav, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.