Daya Kishan Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 9018 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Daya Kishan Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 September, 2025

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak

                                                     1              Writ Appeal No.2513/2025 & 2496/2025



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                       AT G WA L I O R
                                                           BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                                                &
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV

                                                WRIT APPEAL NO.2513/2025
                                    M.P.STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD
                                                     Versus
                                     STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                         Appearance:
                            Shri Jitendra Kumar Sharma - Senior Advocate with Ms. Smrati Sharma and Shri
                         Abhisek Choubey - Advocates for the appellant.
                            Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General for the respondent No.1/State.
                            Shri M.P.S.Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri D.S.Raghuvanshi - Advocate
                         for respondent No.2.
                            Shri Amit Lahoti and Shri Diwakar Vyas- Advocate for respondent No.3.

                                                                &

                                                WRIT APPEAL NO.2496/2025
                                                DAYA KISHAN SHARMA
                                                        Versus
                                       STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                         Appearance:
                            Shri Amit Lahoti & Shri Divakar Vyas - Advocates for the appellant.
                            Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1/State.
                            Shri Jitendra Kumar Sharma - Senior Advocate with Ms. Smrati Sharma and Shri
                         Abhisek Choubey - Advocates for respondent No.2.
                            Shri M.P.S.Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri D.S.Raghuvanshi for the
                         respondent No.3.

                                                         JUDGMENT

(Delivered on this 10th day of September 2025)

Per: Justice Anand Pathak

Regard being had to similitude of the dispute, both the writ appeals are

heard analogously and decided by the common order.

2. W.A.No.2513/2025 is preferred under Section 2 (1) of The Madhya

Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005

by the appellant - M.P.State Agriculture Marketing Board (respondent No.2 in

the writ petition) against the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned

Writ Court in W.P.No.31554/2025. However, against the said order, appellant

- Dayakishan Sharma (respondent No.3 in the writ petition), who was

transferred in place of the petitioner, also preferred W.A.No.2496/2025.

3. By the impugned order dt.18.08.2025, learned Writ Court allowed

and disposed of the writ petition preferred by petitioner - Suresh Kumar

Kumre (respondent No.3 in both the appeals.) thereby setting aside his

transfer order dt.07.08.2025 so also transfer order dt.04.08.2025) relating to

Daya kishan Sharma (appellant in W.A.No.2496/2025).

4. For factual clarity, facts of Writ Appeal No.2513/2025 are taken into

consideration

5. Precisely stated, facts of the case before the Writ Court was that

petitioner was holding the substantive post of Joint Director in M.P. State

Agriculture Marketing Board and was posted at Gwalior at the relevant point

of time vide order dt.17.01.2025 (vide Annnexure P/3 of W.P.)

6. Appellant - M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board (respondent

No.2 in W.P.No.31554/025) is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj

Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Adhiniyam')

and in pursuance thereof Madhya Pradesh State Mandi Board Service

Regulations, 1998 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Regulations') were

framed. As per Schedule - 3 of the Regulations, out of total 15 posts as on

today, 75% posts are required to be filled up by way of promotion and rest

25% posts are to be filled up by transfer and deputation from other

departments. As per Clause 25 of Regulations, any member of the service can

be posted and transferred by Managing Director at any place in the State of

M.P.

7. In pursuance thereof, it appears that three posts were lying, which

are to be filled up through deputation. Therefore, respondent No.3 of Writ

Petition (Dayakishan Sharma), who was member of State Administrative

Services was transferred vide order dt.4th August 2025 (Annexure P/1 of Writ

Petition) from the post of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Singrauli to

the post of Joint Director Mandi, Gwalior. This was the bone of contention

and the petitioner immediately filed writ petition vide W.P.No.31554/2025.

Meanwhile, vide order dt.07.08.2025 (Annexure P/6 of Writ Petition)

petitioner was transferred in same capacity at M.P.State Agriculture

Marketing Board, Headquarter Bhopal and in his place respondent No.3 was

posted at Gwalior. Petitioner challenged both these orders by filing

W.P.No.31554/2025.

8. Respondents filed their return and opposed the prayer on the

strength of different provisions of Adhiniyam and Regulations and prayed for

dismissal of the writ petition.

9. After hearing the rival submissions, Writ Court vide impugned order

dt.18.08.2025 allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and set aside

both the transfer orders dt.04.08.2025 and dt.07.08.2025. Therefore, appellant

- M.P.State Agriculture Marketing Board is before this Court by filing

W.A.No.2513/2025.

10. It is the submission of learned senior counsel appearing for the

M.P.State Agriculture Marketing Board that as per Section 40-A of the

Adhiniyam, State Government has been conferred the power in respect of

Marketing Board and Mandi Samiti. State Government may give directions

in this regard, which Board and Mandi shall have to comply. He also refers

the Regulations in which 25% posts are to be filled up by the State

Government by way of transfer on deputation. Therefore, authorities of the

State Government and the Board can not be challenged.

11. It is further submitted that the petitioner was facing allegations of

corruption and misconduct, which are reflected from the reply of the

Marketing Board (vide Annexure R/2), which indicates that there were severe

complaints against him. Although, transfer is on administrative exigency, but

he was required to be posted at Headquarter because of allegations he faced.

12. It is the submission of learned senior counsel that similarly placed

Joint Director at Jabalpur also challenged his transfer order by way of Writ

Petition No.31666/2025 (R.P.Chakrawarti Vs. The State of M.P. and others) at

Principal Seat Jabalpur but when he did not find the case worth argument,

then counsel for the petitioner (the then Joint Director) sought withdrawal and

petition got dismissed as withdrawn. Petitioner is posted in the same capacity

at Mandi Headquarter Bhopal. He was posted in January 2025 and thereafter

he is posted at Bhopal. Therefore, it is not a case of frequent transfers as

alleged.

13. Counsel for the respondents/State also opposed the prayer and

submits that looking to the conduct of the petitioner (respondent No.3 in writ

appeal) and the allegations against him, he is posted at Mandi Headquarter

Bhopal. He can not claim retention at Gwalior as a matter of right because it

is the prerogative of the employer to post his employee at any place as per

administrative exigency/suitability. He referred provisions of Adhiniyam and

Regulations in support of submissions.

14. Contesting respondent No.3 in the writ appeal (petitioner in writ

petition) opposed the prayer with a vehemence. According to him, respondent

No.2, who is incumbent in place of petitioner, could not have been directly

transferred to Gwalior. His services were to be transferred first at Board and

then he would have been transferred at Gwalior. In absence thereof, order is

not sustainable in law. It is further submitted that he joined recently in January

2025 at Gwalior and now within seven months, he is again posted at Bhopal.

This is a case of frequent transfers.

15. It is further submitted that transfer is on administrative exigency

and therefore complaints can not be looked into. He prayed for dismissal of

appeal.

16. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the

record.

17. This is a case where appellant Mandi Board is before this Court

taking exception to the order passed by the Writ Court, whereby Writ Petition

preferred by respondent No.3 is allowed and his transfer order is set aside.

18. Section 40A of the Adhiniyam would be worth consideration so far

as power of State Government to give direction is concerned. Provision of

Section 40A of Adhiniyam reads as under :-

"40-A. Power of State Government to give direction.-(1) The State Government may give directions to the Board and Mandi Committees.

(2) The Board and the Mandi Committees shall be bound to comply with directions issued by the State Government under sub-section (1)."

19. From the perusal of said provision, it is abundantly clear that the

State Government may give directions to the Board and Mandi committee and

said directions are mandatorily binding over the Board and Mandi committees

as per provisions of Section 40-A of the Adhiniyam.

20. Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dt.19.07.2018 passed

in W.A.No.912/2018 (Prashant Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. ) has

discussed this issue in detail and while relying upon Section 40-A of the

Adhiniyam and the judgment of the coordinate Bench in the case of

R.S.Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P. And others reported in ILR (2007) MP

1329 allowed the writ appeal and dismissed the writ petition preferred by the

employee raising all these grounds.

21. Here, State Government passed the order and posted respondent

No.3 from the post of Commissioner Municipal Corporation Singrauli to Joint

Director Mandi Gwalior. As per Schedule-3 of Regulations, 25% posts of

Joint Director can be filled through transfer on deputation, therefore, State

Government was well within its authority to transfer the petitioner on

deputation directly as Joint Director Mandi Board Gwalior. That power is

vested with the State Government. These three posts of Joint Director can be

filled at any place in Madhya Pradesh by the State Government. Therefore,

there is no impediment to transfer respondent No.3 at Gwalior.

22. So far as transfer of petitioner from Gwalior to Bhopal is

concerned, same is governed by Section 42-D (4) of the Adhiniyam. For ready

reference, sub section (4) of Section 42-D of the Adhiniyam is quoted

hereinbelow :-

"(4) The superintendence and control over all the offices and employees of the Board shall vest in the Managing Director."

23. Not only this, Clause 25 of the Regulations while dealing with the

posting and transfer gives authority to the Managing Director to transfer any

employee at any part of the State. Clause 25 of the Regulations reads as

under:-

**25- inLFkkiuk rFkk LFkkukarj.k lsok ds fdlh Hkh lnL; dks e/;izns'k jkT; ds fdlh Hkkx esa LFkkukarfjr fd;k tk ldsxk vkSj ,slh inLFkkiuk rFkk LFkkukarj.k izca/k lapkyd }kjk fd;s tk;saxs A**

Therefore, it is not a case where Managing Director could not have been

issued transfer order of the petitioner.

24. So far as frequent transfers are concerned, it is not a case of

frequent transfers because petitioner was posted in January 2025 at Gwalior

and thereafter he is transferred to Bhopal. Therefore, it is not a case where

earlier also he was subjected to transfers. Therefore, plea of frequent transfers

deserves rejection.

25. So far as malafides are concerned, no malafides in specific terms

have been mentioned by the petitioner so as to cause interference.

26. While dealing with issue of transfer on the ground of malafides, if

alleged, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan

Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402 has observed in para 7 and 8 as under :-

"7.It is too late in the day for any Government Servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected

adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision.

8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts or Tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that Courts or Tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer."

27. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Airport Authority of India

Vs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey and others (2009) 8 SCC 337 observed as

under :-

"7. In the case of State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal1, while dealing with a matter of transfer, this Court observed that allegations of mala-fides must inspire confidence of the Court and ought not to be entertained on the mere asking of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference would ordinarily be made with an order of transfer. That the burden of proving mala-fides is on a person leveling such allegations and the burden is heavy, admits of no legal ambiguity. Mere assertion or bald statement is not enough to discharge the heavy burden that the law imposes upon the person leveling allegations of mala-fides; it must be supported by requisite materials."

(Emphasis supplied)

28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it appears that Writ Court

glossed over all these aspects especially authority of the State Government to

pass such order as well as direction, the authority of Managing Director to

issue transfer order and thus caused illegality. Therefore, both the writ

appeals are allowed. Impugned order dt.18.08.2025 passed by the Writ Court

is hereby set aside. As a logical consequence, W.P.No.31554/2025 preferred

by the petitioner stands dismissed.

                                    (ANAND PATHAK)                        (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
                                       JUDGE                                    JUDGE

                         SP