Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amar Chandra Solanki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 September, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25074
1 WP-35666-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 4 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 35666 of 2025
AMAR CHANDRA SOLANKI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Manav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
The petitioner is holding the substantive post of Range Assistant. The
petitioner was transferred by order dated 10.06.2025 from Range Assistant
Jat to Range Assistant Baisla Range Rampura. The said order was challenged
before this Court in WP No.28462/2025. The same was disposed of by order
dated 21.07.2025.
The relevant part of the order reads as under :-
"Considering the aforesaid submissions and grievance of the
petitioner, this Court deems it expedient to dispose off the petition
with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive
representation before the competent authority of the respondent
within 10 days from today and if such a representation is
submitted, the same shall be considered and decided by the
competent authority in accordance with law within a period of 30
days from the date of filing of representation, by passing a
reasoned and speaking order. The outcome of the said
representation shall be communicated to the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid submissions and the fact that no successor
has been posted in place of the petitioner, the operation of the
impugned transfer order shall remain stayed and he shall be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25074
2 WP-35666-2025
allowed to continue at present place of posting till the
representation is decided."
The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by order dated
29.08.2025 on the ground that the representation was not submitted within
the period prescribed by this Court in its order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation
was erroneously rejected on the ground of period of submission of the
representation. He argues that the representation of the petitioner was
submitted vide Annexure P/7 on 10th day i.e. 30.07.2025, through proper
channel and therefore, the rejection is arbitrary.
Upon perusal of the order passed by this court which is reproduced
hereinabove, it is clear that this court has granted 10 days time to submit the
representation before the competent authority and if the representation is
submitted within the said period, then the authority was under obligation to
consider the same.
Admittedly the representation was not submitted before the competent
authority within the said period. However, the matter is also considered on
merits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that vide Annexure P/2, the
petitioner was given the charge of the post of Deputy Forest Ranger and in
clause 13, it is mentioned that the employee who is posted is given the charge
shall be required to work minimum for two years.
Upon perusal of Annexure P/2, this Court finds that the same is not
regular promotion but the charge was given and the mention of period of two
years in clause 13, it is not mean that an employee cannot be transferred
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25074
3 WP-35666-2025
before the said period by the employer. The petitioner is posted since 2023 at
the present place of posting. The transfer order has been issued on
administrative reasons.
Thus, even if this court directs for reconsideration of the representation
of the petitioner, since the transfer order has been issued on administrative
ground no ground has been made out for reconsideration of the
representation.
The scope of interference in the transfer matter under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is no longer res integra, as held by the Supreme
Court in the cases of Gujarat 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 the 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 Courts of law if the transfer is
issued in violation of the statutory rules or the order suffers from malafide
exercise of power.
In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25074
4 WP-35666-2025
