Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madanlal Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 July, 2025
1 WP-23254-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 2 nd OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 21336 of 2025
AMOL SINGH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi- Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashwini
Johri, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 21358 of 2025
BHARAT SINGH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner .
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 21573 of 2025
NATTHU SINGH AHIRWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anuj Mohan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/3/2025
7:06:06 PM
2 WP-23254-2025
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 21582 of 2025
IIYAS KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anuj Mohan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 21585 of 2025
MOHAR SINGH AHIRWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anuj Mohan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 21782 of 2025
RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 21929 of 2025
SINGHRAM SINGH GURJAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/3/2025
7:06:06 PM
3 WP-23254-2025
Appearance:
Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner .
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 21947 of 2025
BRIJESH KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner .
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 21951 of 2025
CHANDRAPAL SINGH JADON
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner .
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22036 of 2025
SANJAY SINGH KUSHWAH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi- Senior Advocate assisted by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/3/2025
7:06:06 PM
4 WP-23254-2025
Shri Ashwini Johri, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22045 of 2025
RAMJILAL SHAKYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi- Senior Advocate assisted by
Shri Ashwini Johri, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22062 of 2025
KAUSHAL SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dharmendra Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22064 of 2025
SATENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi- Senior Advocate assisted by
Shri Ashwini Johri, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22069 of 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/3/2025
7:06:06 PM
5 WP-23254-2025
MOHAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi- Senior Advocate assisted by
Shri Ashwini Johri, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22079 of 2025
SMT MAMTA PAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi- Senior Advocate assisted by
Shri Ashwini Johri, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22085 of 2025
RAKESH GURJAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi- Senior Advocate assisted by
Shri Ashwini Johri, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22095 of 2025
SHRIGOVIND SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/3/2025
7:06:06 PM
6 WP-23254-2025
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22135 of 2025
ALOKSINGH BHADORIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akshat Kumar Jain-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22280 of 2025
SHRIDHAR RAWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri G.S.Sharma-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22334 of 2025
RATAN SINGH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri G.S.Sharma-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22337 of 2025
RAMNARESH YADAV
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/3/2025
7:06:06 PM
7 WP-23254-2025
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22345 of 2025
SMT SUMAN BAGHEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22477 of 2025
SITARAM KUSHWAH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi- Senior Advocate assisted by
Shri Ashwini Johri, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22767 of 2025
MITHLESH DEVI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/3/2025
7:06:06 PM
8 WP-23254-2025
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22786 of 2025
RAM RATAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22858 of 2025
RAJKUMAR SINGH GURJAR
Versus
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nitin Agrawal-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22982 of 2025
PULANDAR SINGH GURJAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nakul Khedkar-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 23163 of 2025
UPENDRA SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/3/2025
7:06:06 PM
9 WP-23254-2025
Appearance:
Shri Akram Khan-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 23207 of 2025
NAND KISHORE MEENA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.P.Singh-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 23251 of 2025
RAMKUMAR RAGHUWANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Krishan Kumar Kushwah-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 23254 of 2025
MADANLAL JATAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pavan Singh Raghuvanshi-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 23265 of 2025
RAMPRATAP SINGH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/3/2025
7:06:06 PM
10 WP-23254-2025
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nirmal Sharma-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 23655 of 2025
BRAJKISHORE SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pratip Visoriya-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 23674 of 2025
RISHI PAL SINGH KIRAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pratip Visoriya-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 23680 of 2025
LAXMAN SINGH DHAKAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pratip Visoriya-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/3/2025
7:06:06 PM
11 WP-23254-2025
WRIT PETITION No. 23682 of 2025
RAMKUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Udit Saxena-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 23685 of 2025
KALYAN SINGH BUNDELA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pratip Visoriya-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 23933 of 2025
RAJESH SINGH RAGHUVANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi- Senior Advocate assisted by
Shri Ashwini Johri, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 24023 of 2025
JAGANNATH SINGH KUSHWAH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/3/2025
7:06:06 PM
12 WP-23254-2025
Shri Pratip Visoriya-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 24069 of 2025
CHETRAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri RBS Tomar-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 24085 of 2025
ANIL RAGHUVANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pavan Singh Raghuvanshi-learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions are working as Panchayat
Secretary in different Gram Panchayats. They are aggrieved by the order of their
intra-district transfers which are impugned in these writ petitions.
2. During the course of arguments on admission and interim relief, the
challenge was mainly made on the ground that the impugned orders of transfer are
illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as Chief Executive Officer of Jila
Panchayat is not competent to transfer a Panchayat Secretary without following
the procedure prescribed under Rule 15(j) of M.P. Jila Panchayat (Business)
13 WP-23254-2025
Rules, 1998. It was argued that as per the procedure prescribed under Business
Rules of 1998, the matter was required to be placed before the General
Administration committee and after its approval, the transfer order could have
been passed.
3. The learned Single Judge at Indore Bench of this Court considered this
issue in the case of Ramesh Bhabar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., (W.P. No.
16689/2023) and upheld the objection raised by petitioner therein and quashed the
transfer order. This order was put to challenge by the State of Madhya Pradesh by
filing W.A. No.181 of 2024. Relying upon the order passed by learned Single
Judge in Ramesh Bhabar (supra) and awaiting decision of Division Bench in
W.A. No.181 of 2024, this court passed interim orders in these cases (except
some) directing maintenance of status quo with regard to posting of writ
petitioners.
4. The Division Bench at Indore has allowed W.A. No.181 of 2024 vide
order, dated 30.06.2025, and the order passed by learned Single Judge in case of
Ramesh Bhabar (supra) has been set aside. The Division Bench has held as
under:-
"12. Rule 15 deals with the category of cases which shall be brought
for decision before the General Administration Committee. According
to Rule 15(j) "All cases including transfers and posting of the
employees under the control and jurisdiction of Zila Panchayat should
be brought before the GAC. These Business Rules are framed for Zila
Panchayat not for Janpad Panchayat or Gram Panchayat. As per (j) all
cases including transfers and posting of the employees under the
control and jurisdiction of Zila Panchayat are liable to be governed.
These Business Rules were framed in the year 1998 when there were
no rules regarding recruitment, service conditions and disciplinary
action for members of the panchayat services. For panchayat services,
(Gram Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditions of Service)
Rules were framed in the year 2011 and Panchayat Service
(Recruitment and General Conditions of Services) Rules were framed
14 WP-23254-2025
in the year 1999. Likewise other rules relating to the service conditions
were framed after 1998. Therefore, for other categories of employees
like Samvida Shala Shikshak, Veterinary Services, Woman and Child
Development Service, Kala Karmi, Non-ministerial Class-IV
employees etc. Once the rules have been framed in respect of
Panchayat Secretary their recruitment and condition of service then the
Business Rules 1998 are not liable to be followed.
13.For the purpose of transfer the provision of Rule 6(7) will apply.
The procedure as prescribed in the transfer policy will be followed,
therefore, the C.E.O. Zila Panchayat being an appointing and
disciplinary authority is competent to transfer the secretary from one
Gram Panchayat to another Gram Panchayat and for that the State
Government has framed the transfer policy dated 29.03.2011."
5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid legal position, Chief Executive Officer
of respective Jila Panchayat has been held to be competent to transfer the
Panchayat Secretary from one Gram Panchayat to another Gram Panchayat. It has
also been held that the provisions of Business Rules of 1998 are not applicable in
the matters of transfer of Panchayat Secretary while these matters would be
governed by Rule 6(7) of M.P. Panchayat Services (Gram Panchayat Secretary
Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 and also by the procedure
prescribed in the transfer policy prepared. Thus, the objection raised by
petitioners in these petitions with regard to competence of Chief Executive
Officer of Jila Panchayat to have transferred the Panchayat Secretaries, is hereby
rejected.
6 . During the course of arguments today, the learned counsel for
petitioners pointed out various personal difficulties being faced by petitioners in
carrying out the transfer orders. Some of such personal difficulties are concerning
health issues of petitioners or their family members, study of their child/children,
petitioner having suffering permanent disability etc. The State Government has
issued a transfer policy vide circular, dated 29.04.2025, whereby certain
relaxations have been given to the employees suffering personal difficulties some
15 WP-23254-2025
of which are mentioned above. However, it is a settled proposition of law that a
transfer order cannot be interfered with by the Courts merely because there is
violation of certain provision of transfer policy which has been held to be merely
guidelines and not binding, in several cases. Therefore, since the interference on
the ground of personal difficulties is impermissible, the petitioners are required to
raise these issues before the competent authority.
7 . In some of the cases, the learned counsels for petitioners have
challenged the transfer order on the ground that the petitioners in such cases have
suffered frequent transfers in short span of time. The judgment passed by
coordinate bench of this court in the case of Sanjay Upadhyay vs. State of M.P. &
others (W.P. No.21175/2019) has been relied upon in support of this objection. In
the case of Sanjay Upadhyay , the petitioner was transferred eight times within a
span of three years. The Court after referring to certain decisions of Apex Court,
interfered with the transfer order. However, there is no straight jacket formula
prescribed for determining as to which case is treated to be a case of frequent
transfer. It is also required to be seen that if the exigency of work so desire, an
incumbent can be transferred within time period even shorter to one prescribed in
the transfer policy. The concerned employee is also required to demonstrate
serious hardship being faced by him in carrying out the transfer order as was done
in the case of Sanjay Upadhyay . Thus, this needs to be looked into on case to
case basis by the competent authority.
8 . The another important issue raised by counsels for petitioners is
regarding transfer made by respondents in excess to permissible limit prescribed
in the policy. Rule 6(7) of Rules of 2011 provides for framing of a policy.
Accordingly, vide circular no. पंचा.राज./एफ-6/ ा.पं.स./25/3559, dated
16 WP-23254-2025
21.05.2025, issued by Deputy Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development
Department, the respondents have firstly adopted the transfer policy, dated
29.04.2025, and additionally issued certain instructions to be followed in the
matter of transfer of Panchayat Secretary. Further, vide circular no. पंचा.राज./एफ-
6/ ा.पं.स./25/3632, dated 22.05.2025, Clause 3 has been added for purposes of
making intra-district transfers. Clause 3 has been relied upon by counsels for
petitioners and the same being relevant, is reproduced hereunder:
"जो ाम पंचायत सिचव एक ह ाम पंचायत म वगत 10 वष या उससे
अिधक समयाविध से पद थ ह, उनका थानांतरण भी वचारण म िलया
जाएगा। क तु जला संवग म कायरत सिचव क सं या का 10 ितशत से
अिधक थानांतरण नह कया जा सकेगा। जन सिचव को एक ह ाम
पंचायत म सवािधक समय (10 वष से अिधक) हुआ है उनका थानांतरण
सव थम कया जाएगा । "
9. From reading Clause 3 above, it is revealed that while making intra-
district transfers, the transfers being made should not exceed 10% of total number
of Secretaries working in the District. Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi, Senior Counsel
appearing for some of the petitioners, referred to specific averment made in para
5.4 of W.P. No.22036/2025 that there are total 447 Gram Panchayat in District
Bhind out of which total 64 transfers have been made by way of impugned order
which has exceeded permissible limit as fixed under Clause 3 of circular, dated
22.05.2025. Likewise, referring to para 5.6 of W.P. No.22858/25 in District
Morena, he submitted that there are total 445 Gram Panchayat out of which total
70 Secretaries have been transferred which again exceeds 10% limit.
10. Mr. D.P. Singh, learned Counsel for some of the petitioners relied
upon order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kalyan Singh
Kaurav vs. State of M.P. & ors. (W.P. No.5070/23) in support of the contention
that the instructions issued vide circular, dated 21.05.2025 & 22.05.2025, are
17 WP-23254-2025
binding having been issued under statute. However, in the said case, this court has
not decided any legal issue and has simply relegated the matter to the concerned
authority for reconsideration. The court has referred in the said order, the
judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gram Panchayat,
Hardi vs. Anil Dixit & ors. reported in 2016(1) MPLJ 29 . However, this
judgment also does not deal with the proposition being raised by counsel for
petitioners.
11. The counsel for petitioners also relied upon Division Bench judgment
of this Court in the case of Gram Panchayat, Jhadel vs. State of M.P. & ors.
reported in (2012)11 MPCK 0073 (W.A. No.671/2012) . It was a case where the
Division Bench held that transfer of Gram Panchayat is not permissible without
placing the same before General Administration Committee. This judgment has
been considered recently by the Division Bench in the case of Ramesh Bhabar
(supra) and has upheld the power of Chief Executive Officer to transfer a
Panchayat Secretary without approval from General Administration Committee.
Thus, the judgment in the case of Gram Panchayat, Jhadel is also not an authority
for the issue of policy being binding or not.
12. Clause 3 of circular, dated 22.05.2025, specifically provide that the
intra-district transfers of Panchayat Secretary in a district should not exceed 10%
of total strength of Panchayat Secretaries in the said district. Even if this clause is
not mandatory and/or binding, there has to be some reason for departing from the
said condition.
13. As submitted by Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi, averments have been
made giving data of total number of Gram Panchayat in district Bhind and
Morena in the aforesaid two writ petitions only. However, there is no document
available on record in support of such a submission. There is no response of
18 WP-23254-2025
respondents available on record in rebuttal. Thus, no specific direction can be
issued in this regard on the basis of only averments made in aforesaid two writ
petitions.
14. Since, large number of transfers have been made, which if interfered
with by passing any interim order, would paralyze the entire working of Gram
Panchayats. Further, keeping these petitions pending without passing any interim
order would also not serve the purpose of petitioners. Therefore, instead of
keeping these petitions pending and asking the respondents to submit their
response, it is proper to direct the competent authority to look into this aspect of
the matter and pass suitable orders. This is also because, in case of transfers
having exceeded 10% limit, it is for the competent authority only to decide as to
who is required to be transferred and who is to be retained. Further, the transfer of
one is dependent on transfer of other Secretary. Thus, this exercise is to be
conducted by respondents alone.
15. In W.P. No.23685/25 (Kalyan Singh Bundela vs. State of M.P. &
ors.), the petitioner is stated to be retiring in January' 2026. Therefore, the
respondents are required to reconsider as to whether there is pressing exigency so
as to disturb these petitioners at this fag end of their carrier. It is, therefore,
directed that the petitioner shall make a representation in this regard to competent
authority by 10.07.2025 and the competent authority shall decide the same within
next 30 days. Till his representation is decided and if nobody else is posted at his
place, the petitioner viz. Shri Kalyan Singh Bundela, be allowed to continue at his
present place of posting.
16. Considering the aforesaid, these petitions are disposed of with the
following directions:
i. the petitioners are granted liberty to raise their personal difficulties by
19 WP-23254-2025
way of making representation before the Collector of their respective district who
shall consider and pass suitable speaking order thereon;
ii. the Collector of respective districts is directed to examine the transfer
orders impugned in these writ petitions in view of Clause 3 of circular, dated
22.05.2025, and in case there is no pressing exigency found for exceeding 10%
limit as fixed under Clause 3 of circular, dated 22.05.2025, he shall pass
necessary orders in this regard;
iii. in W.P. No.23685/25 (Kalyan Singh Bundela vs. State of M.P. &
ors.) where interim protection is being granted by way of this order, the petitioner
shall communicate this order alongwith his representation by 10.07.2025 to the
concerned Collector failing which the interim protection, granted by this court,
shall cease to have its force. The interim protection granted shall continue till his
representation is decided by the Collector;
iv. the interim order of status quo passed earlier in these petitions is
vacated. The petitioners shall join at their transferred place without waiting for
decision on their representation and/or decision as per direction no.ii above.
However, their joining shall be subject to outcome of their representation or order
passed as per direction no.ii;
v. the competent authority after considering the case(s) as per direction
no.i & ii, if finds that the transfer of a Secretary is liable to be cancelled, it shall
give an option to the concerned Secretary either to go back to its earlier posting
or to remain at transferred place.
17. Petitions stand disposed of, accordingly.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
20 WP-23254-2025
JUDGE
JPS/-
