Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pooja Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 September, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27165
1 WA-2711-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 17th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 2711 of 2025
POOJA SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harshwardhan Singh Rathore - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
1. The appellant has filed this writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the
Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005, challenging the order dated 11.9.2025, whereby the Writ
Petition No.36423/2025 has been dismissed.
2. Facts in short are that vide order dated 17.6.2025, the petitioner has
been transferred from the Office of Deputy Director, Horticulture, Indore to
the Office of Deputy Director, Horticulture, Mandsaur. The petitioner had
approached this Court by way of WP No.23736/2025, challenging the
transfer order, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.6.2025, directing
the respondent to consider and decide the representation. The petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27165
2 WA-2711-2025
submitted a representation on the personal grounds that her two brothers
have died suddenly, her aged father & mother are suffering from ailments,
and her nephew is dependent on her. The relevant paragraph is reproduced
below:-
"अत: माननीय महोदया जी िनवेदन है , क मेरे दोन भाईय का
आक मक िनधन हो गया है एवं मेरे माता- पता बीमा रय से त
होने से उनके दे खभाल क ज मेदार मुझ पर ह है तथा मेरे वग य
बड़े भाई का पु (भतीजा) अभी छोटा है , जसक िश ा एवं दे खभाल
क ज मेदार मुझ पर ह है ।'
3. The competent authority has rejected the representation vide order
dated 4.9.2025. The petitioner again approached this Court by way of a writ
petition, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 11.9.2025,
hence this writ appeal before this court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
appellant's transfer is in gross violation of Clauses 18 & 29 of the transfer
policy; however, these grounds have not been taken in the representation
submitted by the appellant.
5. So far as Clause 18 is concerned, though she has a good service
record, but she has completed more than 6 years at the present place of
posting at Indore. So far as Clause 29 is concerned, the posting of a widow,
unmarried and deserted woman is liable to be done in the home district as far
as possible. The appellant came to Indore in the year 2018, therefore, she has
been accommodated for more than 6 years. Clause 29 cannot give the
interpretation that female employees/ officers of these categories should not
be transferred from their home districts, or that it is mandatory to post them
in the home district.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27165
3 WA-2711-2025
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that other officers
have been posted at Indore for a longer period than the appellant but none of
them has been transferred. Even this ground has not been taken in the
representation, and no details in support of this allegation have been given.
Therefore, appellant cannot include this ground in the third round of
litigation in the writ appeal before this Court. Once the Writ Court has
directed the submission of a representation, then all relevant grounds should
be taken in the representation before the concerned authority. Three times
this Court has examined the matter relating to the simple transfer of an
officer who has completed more than 6 years at the present place of posting.
Hence, no further interference is required. The writ court has rightly
dismissed the writ petition by placing reliance on the judgments passed by
the Apex court.
7. The writ appeal is dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
trilok
