Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjeev Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26732
1 WP-28165-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 17th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 28165 of 2025
SANJEEV GURJAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.P.Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishor Gupta- Govt. Advocate for the respondents no.1 to
6/State.
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma- Advocate for the respondent no.7/
[CAVEAT].
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order, dated,
14.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) whereby his earlier transfer order, dated
17.06.2025, whereby he was posted at Halka Jouri, Tehsil Morena has been
cancelled and the charge of Patwari Halka Jouri has been given back to
respondent no.7. He has also challenged the subsequent order, dated
21.07.2025.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner
was initially appointed as Patwari on 06.10.2018 and was posted in Tehsil
Joura, District Morena. Vide order, dated 17.06.2025, (Annexure P/2), he
was transferred from Patwari Halka Runipur Tehsil Joura, to Jouri, Tehsil
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26732
2 WP-28165-2025
Morena, District Morena (M.P.). As per the submissions of the petitioner, he
handed over the charge of Patwari Halka Runipur to one Manish Sharma and
submitted his joining at Patwari Halka No.8, Jouri, Tehsil Morena Nagar on
23.06.2025.
3 . Since, the respondent no.7 was already working at Patwari Halka
No.8, Jouri, Tehsil Morena Nagar. On account of the posting of the petitioner
at his place, he was attached in the Kanoongo Branch of Tehsil Office of
Morena Nagar vide order, dated 26.06.2025. Being aggrieved by the order,
dated 26.06.2025, the respondent no.7 filed W.P. No.23713 of 2025 before
this Court. However, vide order, dated 08.07.2025, the said writ petition was
withdrawn with liberty to pursue his representation made before the
respondent-authority.
4 . It appears that the respondent no.7 thereafter submitted his
representations before the respondent-authorities and considering the same,
the impugned order was passed on 14.07.2025 thereby cancelling the order,
dated 17.06.2025, in relation to the petitioner on the ground that there was no
vacant post available in Halka Jouri. The respondent no.7 was accordingly
restored to its earlier post.
5 . Challenging the impugned orders, the learned counsel for the
petitioner primarily contended that the petitioner had executed the transfer
order, dated 17.06.2025, and, therefore, once the transfer order is executed,
the same could not have been cancelled by the respondent-authority. In
support of his submission, he placed reliance upon Division Bench judgment
in the case of Rajkumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (W.A. No.727 of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26732
3 WP-28165-2025
2018). Learned counsel further submitted that the reason assigned in the
impugned order that there was no post of Patwari vacant in Jouri is also
incorrect. He further submitted that the respondent no.7 had been posted in
Patwari Halka Jouri since 2019 and further that Tehsil Morena is his
hometown and, therefore, as per the instructions of State Government, he
cannot be posted in his hometown. Learned counsel further submits that the
impugned order has been passed only to give favour to the respondent no.7
and, therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside.
6. On the other had, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents no.1
to 6 supported the impugned order and submitted that even though there was
no vacant post available in Tehsil Morena, the petitioner was erroneously
transferred vide order, dated 17.06.2025. He also submitted that the
respondent no.7 was already working in Patwari Halka No.8 Jouri, Tehsil
Morena and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been allowed joining
there. However, since the order was passed by Additional Collector, Morena,
the Sub Divisional Officer for the time being, allowed the petitioner to join at
Patwari Halka No.8 Jouri, Tehsil Morena Nagar and attached the respondent
no.7 in Kanoongo Branch of the Tehsil Office. However, the attachment of
the respondent no.7 was not proper inasmuch as there was no post of Patwari
i n Kanoongo Branch. He further submitted that when the respondent no.7
represented the matter before the Collector, the same was considered and the
impugned order was thereafter passed on 14.07.2025. Learned counsel
submitted that the transfer order of the petitioner vide order, dated
17.06.2025 since was passed ignoring the fact that there is no post available,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26732
4 WP-28165-2025
the mistake has been rectified by passing the impugned order and, therefore,
the petitioner does not get any help from the Division Bench judgment in the
case of Rajkumar Sharma (supra). He, therefore submits that the impugned
order is just and proper and does not warrant any interference.
7. Learned counsel for respondent no.7 in his turn adopts the argument
of Govt. Advocate. In addition, he submitted that since he was already
working in Patwari Halka No.8 Jouri, Tehsil Morena Nagar, the posting of
the petitioner at his place without there being any order for respondent no.7
was erroneous. He further submitted that the attachment of respondent no.7
in Kanoongo Branch is not permissible and because of his attachment in the
said Office, the respondent no.7 is suffering financial loss inasmuch as while
working as Patwari in the field, the respondent no.7 is entitled to certain
additional allowances which he is not getting in Kanoongo Branch. He,
therefore, prays for dismissal of this writ petition.
8. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
9. Certain facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner was
earlier posted at Halka Runipur, Tehsil Joura, District Morena. Vide order
dated 17.06.2025, he was transferred and posted at Jouri Tehsil Morena. The
Patwari Halka was not mentioned in the aforesaid transfer order and as per
the note appended to this order, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer was
required to allot the Patwari Halka. Accordingly, vide order dated
26.06.2025, SDO, Morena posted the petitioner at Patwari Halka No.8, Jouri,
Tehsil Morena. It is also not in dispute that respondent no.7 was already
working in the aforesaid Patwari Halka. Vide the same order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26732
5 WP-28165-2025
26.06.2025, the SDO attached respondent no.7 to the Kanoongo Branch of
the Tehsil office.
10. Thus, it is evident that on account of posting of the petitioner,
respondent no.7 was disturbed even though there was no order of transfer for
him.
11. The respondent no.1 to 6 have filed the reply, wherein in
paragraph - 8, it is specifically stated that there were only 12 sanctioned post
of Patwari in Tehsil Morena. Including respondent no.7, all 12 posts were
occupied and there was no vacant post available in the said Tehsil. It is thus,
evident that posting of the petitioner at Patwari Halka No.8, Jouri, Morena
was not permissible for want of vacant post. Thus, when respondent no.7
represented the matter before respondent authorities, the mistake has been
rectified by cancelling the order dated 17.06.2025, so far as it related to the
petitioner.
12. The submission of the petitioner that executed order of transfer
cannot be cancelled is based upon the Division Bench judgment rendered in
the case of Raj Kumar Sharma (Supra). However, a bare reading of the
aforesaid order shows that executed transfer order can be modified/cancelled
for sound administrative reasons. The reason assigned by respondents for
cancelling the petitioner's transfer order is that the post is not available in
Tehsil Morena and on account of petitioner's posting, the respondent no.7 is
disturbed even though there was no transfer order for him. The reasons
assigned is thus sufficient to cancel the petitioner's transfer.
13. Before the impugned order dated 14.07.2023 was stayed by this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26732
6 WP-28165-2025
Court on 23.07.2025, the petitioner was already relieved from Patwari Halka
No.8 Jouri, Tehsil Morena on 21.07.2025.
14. Considering the aforesaid, cancellation of the transfer order of the
petitioner vide impugned order dated 14.07.2025 is based upon sound
reasons and cannot be said to be illegal or malafide. Accordingly, the same is
upheld.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner
was relieved from the earlier posting and the charge of Patwari Halka was
handed over by him to one Mr. Manish Sharma. As per his submission, he
has no place to join. In this regard, it is directed that the petitioner may
submit his joining before the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer who shall
ensure that the petitioner is given joining at appropriate place in Tehsil
Joura, District Morena.
16. With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
