Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bheem Singh Panwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 September, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 WP-36059-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 10th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 36059 of 2025
BHEEM SINGH PANWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jayaditya Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain Dy.GA for State.
ORDER
This is third visit of the petitioner before this Court. Petitioner is
challenging the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 (Annx.P/1) issued by the
respondent No.4 by which the representation submitted by the petitioner
challenging his impugned transfer order dated 14.6.2025 passed in violation
of clause 33 of Transfer policy, 2025 has been rejected by the respondents.
The petitioner was transferred from the post of Primary Teacher, Govt.
Middle School, Morukhedi to Govt. Primary School, Olamba. The said order
was challenged before this Court in W.P.No. 22660/2025. The said petition
was disposed off with a direction to the respondents to decide the
representation of the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner was
rejected by order dated 17.7.2025. The said order was challenged before this
Court in W.P.No.28706/2025. This Court disposed of the said petition by
granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation and the
2 WP-36059-2025
competent authority was directed to decide the same. In compliance to the
said order, petitioner submitted the representation and stated that petitioner is
office bearer of Tahsil level of M.P. Rajya Shikshak Sangh, Dewas. The said
representation has been rejected by the impugned order dated 29.08.2025
(Annx.P/1). The authority has taken into consideration the ground raised by
the petitioner with regard to claiming exemption from transfer being office
bearer as per clause 33 of the Transfer policy of the State Govt. dated
29.04.2025. While rejecting the representation of the petitioner, the
competent authority has taken note that there is no correspondence from the
office of the Association informing about his nomination. He has further
recorded a finding that since January, 2023 there is no record about election
of the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that he has filed certificate Annx.P/4
before the competent authority. Upon perusal of the said Annx.P/4 whereby
the petitioner was appointed as President of the Association at Tahsil level,
this Court finds that there is no material to indicate that said election or
nomination was duly communicated to the Collector or the higher authority
as per clause 33 of the Transfer policy.
The transfer is an incident of service and who should be posted at
which place has to be decided by the employer. This has been held by the
Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and Anr. Vs. Siyaram and Anr.
reported in 2004 (7) SCC 405. Law relating to scope of interference in the
transfer matter is no longer res integra that violation of transfer policy is non-
enforceable by the Courts, as held by the Supreme Court in the cases of
3 WP-36059-2025
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 Courts of law if the transfer is issued in violation of the
statutory rules or the order suffers from malafide exercise of power. The
High Court is not the Appellate Authority in such administrative matter
where the representation has been rejected against the transfer by stating that
the transfer order was issued on administrative reason.
In view of the aforesaid, the petition sans merit and is hereby
dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
