Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Mohammad Shahid Sheikh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla, Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13457
1 WP-18741-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 20th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 18741 of 2025
DR. MOHAMMAD SHAHID SHEIKH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Mini Ravindran - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Son, AAG for respondent/State on caveat.
ORDER
The petitioner who is working as District Health and Epidemic Control
Officer is challenging the legality and validity of the transfer order dated
16.5.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner has been
transferred from the office of District Health and Family Welfare, Dewas to
the office of District Health and Family Welfare, Singrauli on administrative
exigency.
2. Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been transferred
on administrative ground whereas in the impugned order most of the
employees have been transferred on their own request. The petitioner had
also submitted an application for transfer on own request to Indore, however
without considering the same the petitioner has been transferred to Singrauli
which is approximately 900 kms. away from the present place of posting at
Dewas. It is further argued that petitioner was posted at present place of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13457
2 WP-18741-2025
posting in the year 2023 and the petitioner has been transferred in violation
of transfer policy as he has not completed normal tenure of 3 years at present
place of posting.
3. Counsel for the State argued that transfer order has been passed on
administrative grounds in accordance with latest transfer policy of 2025 as
the transfer order has been duly approved by the Minister concern. He
further argued that services of the petitioner has been considered to be
utilized by the respondents in Singrauli for administrative reasons. On
instructions, he further submitted that petitioner cannot be accommodated at
Indore as there is no such post.
4. Admittedly the petitioner is holding the post of class-II, Grade-I
which is State level cadre and services of the petitioner are transferrable in
the State of Madhya Pradesh. The transfer order itself indicates that transfer
order has been issued on administrative reasons. So far as contention of the
petitioner that others have been accommodated at the places of their own
choice, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Siyaram, 2004(7) SCC
405 the Apex Court held that who should be posted where it is within the
domain of 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13457
3 WP-18741-2025
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 Power Corpn.Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan,
(2001) 8 SCC574."
5. 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 Court of law if the transfer is issued in violation of the
statutory rules or the order suffers from malafide exercise of power.
6. In the light of aforesaid enunciation of law, no case for interference
is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
