Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Chandra Choudhary vs State Of M P Through Principal Secretary ... on 5 August, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20632
1 WP-30841-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 5 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 30841 of 2025
SURESH CHANDRA CHOUDHARY
Versus
STATE OF M P THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sunil Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Parwal - G.A for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is second visit of petitioner before this Court.
The petitioner who is working as Primary Teacher has challenged the
transfer order dated 14/6/2025 whereby he has been transferred from
Government Primary School Napakhedi, District Dewas to Government
Primary School, Semali Narmada, District Dewas. The petitioner challenged
the said order earlier in W.P No.24208/2025. The said petition was disposed
of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation alongwith all
relevant documents before the competent authority and the said authority was
directed to decide the said representation by a reasoned and speaking order
within further period of 4 weeks from the date of filing of the representation.
It was directed that till the said representation is decided, the petitioner shall
be allowed to work at present place of posting.
In compliance to the said order, the petitioner filed a representation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20632
2 WP-30841-2025
Annexure P-6 alongwith the documents. By order dated 17/7/2025 i.e
Annexure P-7, his representation against the transfer order has been rejected
considering clause 3.3.1 point 4 of transfer policy dated 8/9/2022 that an
employee can be transferred on administrative exigency due to inevitable
situations.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was appointed in
handicapped category and alongwith the representation he has filed
documents in this regard that he has the disability of more than 40% and,
therefore, as per the policy of the School Education Department, Annexure
P-9 dated 8/9/2022 in clause 2.15 and clause 2.17, he cannot be transferred.
As per clause 2.17, the employees who were suffering from serious ailments
or who are due for retirement within period of 3 years or are handicapped are
to be exempted from transfer. He further referred the transfer policy of the
State Goverment of year 2022 referring to the Clause 2.16 in which it is
provided that the employees which falls within the handicapped category
cannot be ordinarily transferred.
Counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submitted that there is no
such exemption to the handicapped employees stating that they will never be
transferred. He further argued that the petitioner was transferred at present
place of posting in year 2011 on his own request and thus, for last more than
14 years, he is working at present place of posting.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that after the order passed by this
Court, the competent authority decided his representation Annexure P-4
dated 18/6/2025 but he ought to have decided the representation Annexure
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20632
3 WP-30841-2025
P-6 dated 30/6/2025 which was submitted after the order passed by this
Court in the Writ Petition.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact
that the competent authority has rejected the representation after taking into
consideration the fact that the petitioner has been transferred on
administrative exigency. The petitioner is undisputedly posted at present
place of posting for more than 14 years. From perusal of clause 2.17, it is
pellucid that the said exemption is granted only from the procedure
prescribed for transfer under clause 2.15 and clause 2.16. There is no general
exemption from transfer to a handicapped category provided that he will
never be transferred. Further, this Court does not find any merit in the
contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the competent authority
ought to have decided the representation dated 18/6/2025 instead of
representation dated 30/6/2025 because both the representations are virtually
similar and the same points are raised in the subsequent representation filed
by the petitioner.
Law relating to scope of interference in the transfer matter is no longer
res integra, as held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Gujrat Electricity
Board and another vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, (1989) 2 SCC 602;
Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 and the
judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.
Choudhary vs. State of M.P. and others, 2007(2) ILR MP Series 1329 , the
transfer is an incidence of service and the transfer order can only be
interfered by the Courts of law if the transfer is issued in violation of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20632
4 WP-30841-2025
statutory rules or the order suffers from malafide exercise of power.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality or
perversity in the order rejecting the representation. Accordingly, present
petition stands dismissed.
No order as to cost.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
PK
