Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sapna Singh Bhadoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21615
1 WA-2242-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 12th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 2242 of 2025
SMT. SAPNA SINGH BHADORIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vikas Jaiswal - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava - Deputy Advocate for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
This appeal under the Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchha
Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed by
the appellant assailing the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in the W.P.No.
28408/2025 whereby the writ Court has dismissed the writ petition filed
against the transfer order dated 14.07.2025.
2. The Commissioner, Public Education, M.P. vide order 14.07.2025
has transferred the appellant who was posted as Principal at Government
Higher Secondary School, Guran, Tehsil Sanwer, District Indore to
Government Utkrusht Higher Secondary School, Depalpur, District
Indore. The main grievance of the appellant is that she has been subjected to
transfer by way of stigmatic order which is not permissible in service
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21615
2 WA-2242-2025
jurisprudence.
3. The learned writ Court has dismissed the writ petition by placing
reliance on the law laid down by the Apex Court in case Gujarat 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 Sertes 1329 where
interference in the transfer orders by the High Court has been deprecated.
However, the writ Court has also observed that the transfer order shall not be
treated as a stigmatic order against the appellant. Hence, the present appeal
before this Court.
4. On 04.08.2025, this Court directed the Dy. A.G. for the State to
produce the original record pertaining to the transfer of the appellant in order
to verify the reasons behind the transfer. Today, the copy of the record has
been produced which reveals that there are various allegations, counter-
allegations, recorded statements and recommendation by the public
representative which are the basis of transfer of the appellant. Even
otherwise, the appellant has completed two years at the present place of
posting and she has been transferred within the District. Therefore, the order
of transfer is not causing any harassment to the appellant.
5. So far as the reasons mentioned in the transfer order is concerned,
the writ Court has observed that the transfer order shall not be treated as
stigmatic order. However, if the appellant is still aggrieved, she will be at
liberty to make a representation to the transferring authority, who shall give
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21615
3 WA-2242-2025
an opportunity to the appellant and thereafter pass necessary order.
6. Accordingly, finding no ground for interference in the impugned
order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the writ Court, this appeal stands
dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
