Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Ishrat Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 July, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19015
1 WP-28723-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 22nd OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 28723 of 2025
SMT ISHRAT KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Suyash Malpani, counsel for petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain, Dy.GA for State.
ORDER
This is second round of petitioner before this Court. Earlier the
petitioner filed W.P.No. 22279/2025 against her transfer from GPS
Barkheda to GPS Koyala in Rajgarh which was disposed off with a direction
to the respondent No.3 to consider and decide the representation of the
petitioner in accordance with law.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that representation of the petitioner
has been rejected erroneously without considering the number of students
and Teachers and therefore the transfer order is in violation of the transfer
policy.
From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that representation of
the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that she has been transferred
within the same district on the ground of administrative exigency and
personal hardship cannot be a ground to be interfered with the transfer order.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19015
2 WP-28723-2025
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 Gujarat Electricity
Board 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
Court of law if the transfer is issued in violation of the statutory rules or the
order suffers from malafide exercise of power.
The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and another Vs. Siya
Ram and another (2004) 7 SCC 405 ruled that an employee should be posted
where it has to be decided by the employer and an employee has no right to
claim posting at a particular place. The relevant extract reads as under :-
"5. The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India had gone into the
question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public
service. That would essentially require factual adjudication and
invariably depend upon peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case concerned. No government servant or employee of a public
undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one
particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular
employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts
from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of
service, necessary too in public interest and
efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer
is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in
violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the
courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders
as a matter of routine, as though they were appellate authorities
substituting their own decision for that of the
employer/management, as against such orders passed in the
interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This
position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19015
3 WP-28723-2025
Power Corpn.Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC574.
The petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant petition, the
petitioner could not establish any breach of statutory rule or a case of mala-
fide.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
