Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Dilip Kumar Dr. D. Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 24th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2069 of 2025
DR. DILIP KUMAR
Vs.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCE:
Shri MPS Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Amir Khan -
Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Vivek Khedkar -Additional Advocate General/Senior
Advocate with Shri Sohit Mishra - Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. The present appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005
is preferred by the appellant/petitioner being crestfallen by the order
dated 07-07-2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.20487 of 2025 whereby the petition preferred by the appellant
(hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") has been dismissed,
declining the relief as sought by the petitioner.
2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
place where petitioner is transferred, no post of Professor
(Chemistry) is available. It is further submitted that transfer order of
petitioner is against the rule 4(i) of Indian Council of Historical
Research Funding Rules, 2017 as petitioner is in the mid of research
project and research scholars are also pursuing their Ph.D. under the
guidance of petitioner. Petitioner is receiving the Grade Pay of
Rs.10,000/- and the post having GP of Rs.10,000/- is not available
at the transferred place and the ground of petitioner belonging to
different cadre has also been taken by the petitioner. The ground in
relation to office bearer of All India Federation of University &
College Teachers' Organization has also been pleaded.
3. It is further submitted that learned Writ Court did not consider the
controversy in correct perspective and without considering the
material aspects of the matter, dismissed the writ petition preferred
by the petitioner with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Thus, prayed for setting
aside the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents/State while supporting the
order passed by learned Writ Court, opposed the prayer and submits
that petitioner does not come before this Court with clean hands and
at every stage he tried to mislead the Court submitting the incorrect
information. Thus, prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
6. Transfer is an incident of service. No one much less petitioner has
any vested right to be posted at a particular place of posting. It is
well settled in law that employer is the best judge to organize its
work force and it is also well settled in law that a transfer order
cannot be subjected to judicial review unless and until same is
found to be influenced by mala fide or arbitrary exercise of powers
which petitioner fails to do so. Concept of equality as enshrined
under Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, has no application
to the cases of transfers.
7. This is a case where petitioner sought the relief of setting aside of
his transfer order from SMS Government Model Science College,
Gwalior to Government Nehru P.G. College, Agar-Malwa on
incorrect submissions by misleading the Court. All the grounds
pleaded by petitioner to get the order of his transfer set aside before
learned Writ Court were falsified and misstatement of facts.
8. The core ground of petitioner of non-availability of post of
Professor (Chemistry) at Government Nehru P.G. College, Agar-
Malwa is not correct. The respondents through Annexure R/3
submitted before learned Writ Court clearly established that the post
of Professor (Chemistry) is very well available as on the said post a
guest faculty is working while there is requirement of a regular
professor. Thus, the petitioner repeatedly made misstatements before
this Court as well as before learned Writ Court in relation to
availability of post.
9. From the record, it appears that petitioner was appointed on 19-03-
2012 on the post of Professor (Chemistry) in SMS Government
Model Science College, Gwalior and since then he is posted at
Gwalior meaning thereby petitioner is posted at Gwalior for almost
13 years. In the W.P.No.20487 of 2025 preferred by the petitioner,
interim order was passed by this Court on 12-06-2025 on the ground
of non-availability of post at the transferred place and transfer order
of petitioner was stayed. This order order was based upon the order
dated 24-06-2015 passed by the Coordinate Bench in W.P..No.3777
of 2015. Interestingly, said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn
on 05-11-2015. However, this fact was not disclosed by petitioner
before Writ Court and obtained stay order on the basis of earlier stay
order dated 24-06-2015. Thus the reliance placed by petitioner in
W.P.No.20487 of 2025 was misplaced and on incorrect/concealed
facts. It was an attempt to mislead the Court. Learned Writ Court
took note of all these facts correctly.
10. Other grounds raised by the petitioner in relation to non-availability
of post having the GP of Rs.10,000/- at the transferred place,
violation of rule 4(i) of Indian Council of Historical Research
Funding Rules, 2017 as petitioner is involved in research work,
office bearer and research scholars are also pursuing their Ph.D.
under his guidance, were elaborately dealt with by learned Writ
Court and rightly concluded against the petitioner. All these grounds
taken by the petitioner in writ petition were successfully thwarted
by the respondents before learned Writ Court.
11. In spite of dismissal of writ petition by learned Writ Court on the
ground of misstatement of facts and intention of misleading the
Court, petitioner again challenged the said order of learned Writ
Court in this writ appeal almost on the same averments and grounds.
Thus, writ appeal is misconceived. Writ Court rightly imposed cost
Rs.5,000/-.
12. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, looking to
the well reasoned order passed by learned Writ Court, same is
hereby affirmed.
13. Appeal stands dismissed. Cost of Rs.5,000/- as imposed by learned
Writ Court be deposited within 10 days.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
Anil* JUDGE JUDGE
ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
KUMAR
BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068b51dae27
e84c266b09d283f0799e67cdc7df50f,
CHAURASIY
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=EC534CBB3B245F050119F06F4A2
96DD83C765A1E2ACC6EC7D8BD8CBCC9C2446E,
cn=ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA
A
Date: 2025.08.01 11:38:57 +05'30'
