STTE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus SHANKER LAL & ORS.

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 786 · Decided: 16-01-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
786 
ST A TE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
SHANKER LAL & ORS. 
January 16, 1980 
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND 0. CHJN,;APPA REDDY, JJ.] 
}.,fadhya Pradesh .Municipalities Act, 1961, Section 94(7)-Scope of-State 
Governrnent transferred teachers en1ployed by Municipal Coucils-Competency 
of. 
The respondents were employed as lecturers and teachers in the various 
C 
Municipal Higher Secondary Schools run and managed by a Municipal Council 
in the State. 
The State Government transferred certain lecturers and teachers 
serving under a particular Municipal Council to the Schools run and managed 
by another Municipal 
Council. 
The respondents writ petition challenging 
the order of their transfers was allowed by the High Court on the ground 
that no officer other than those mentioned in s. 94(7) namely Revenue Officer,. 
Accounts Officer etc. could be transferred. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
In the State's appeal the respondents contended that they were employees 
of schools run and managed by Municipal Councils but not of the Councils. 
HELD : I. The High Court was not right in putting a retricted interpre-
tation on s. 94(7) of the Act. The other officers and servants who can be 
appointed by the Municipal Councils under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) 
of Section 97 ar'e also officers and servants mentioned in these sub-sections for 
the purposes of sub-section (7). Theoretically, therefore, the power 
does 
exist in the State Government to transfer them. [788 B-C] 
2. The argument that the respondents arc the employees of schools run 
and managed by the Municipal Councils but not of the councils themselves 
has no substance. 
Education department is one of the departments of a 
~funicipal Council. 
Section 124 envisages the establishment and running 
of 
Higher Secondary Schools by Municipal Councils and therefore the lecturers 
and teachers appointed in the various <>chools are officers and servants of the 
Municipal Councils. [788 G-H, 789 A] 
3. In case of employees getting small emoluments the power to transfer 
should be sparingly exercised under some compelling exigencies of a particular 
situation and not as a matter of routine. [788 C-D] 
Clv1r. APPELLATE JuR1smcnoN : Civil Appeal Nos. 537-539 of 
•. 
./ r 
1970. 
;_..-
H 
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
20-8-1968 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc, Petition Nos. 
282, 283 and 293 of J 968. 
S K. Gambhir for the Appellant. 
S. S. Khanduja for the Respondents. 
.,,. 
t 
' 
M. P. STATE y. SHANKER LAL ( Ulltwalia, !. ) 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UNTWALIA, J.-These three appeals by special leave are from the 
common judgment of the Madh\"l Pradesh High Court allowing the 
Writ Petitions filed by the six respondents and quashing the orders 
of their transfer made by the State Government in exercise of their 
power under s. 94(7) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 
1\161, hereinafter called the Act. 
The respondents were employees 
of the Municipal Council, Sagar. 
They were employed as lecturers 
and teachers in the various Municipal Higher Secondary Schools run 
and managed by the said Municipal Council. 
Three orders were 
issued by the State Government on various dates in June, 1968 trans-
ferring certain lecturers and teachers serving under a particular Muni-
cipal Council tci the schools run and managed by another Municipal 
Council. 
The six respondents were transferred by the said orders to 
various places. They challenged the order of transfer in the High 
Court on the ground that the State Government had no power to 
transfer them under s. 94(7) of the Act. The High Court has ~c­
cepted their contention and hence these appeals. 
We shall quote the relevant provisions of s. 94 of the Act as they 
stood at the relevant time from the judgment of the High Court. There 
have been some amendments in the year 1973 with which we are not 
concerned. 
They read as follows :-
"94. Appointment of staff :-
( 1) Every Council having an annual income of 
five 
lakhs of rupees or more shall, subject to rules framed 
under section 95, appoint a Revenue Officer and an 
Accounts Officer and may appoint such other officers 
and servants as may be necessary and proper for the 
efficient discharge of its duties. 
(2) Every Council not falling under sub-section (1) 
shall, subject to rules framed under section 95, 
appoint a Sanitary Inspector, an Overseer, a Revenue · 
Inspector, and an Accountant and may appoint such 
other officers and s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.