[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Singh Shaktawat vs District Education Offcier on 12 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:931
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33970
11 W.P.
W.P.No.46583/2025
No.43709/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No.46583 of 2025
RAJENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT
Versus
DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER NEEMUCH
Appearance:
Shri L.C Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raghav Srivastav - Government Advocate for
respondents/State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 01/12/2025
Posted on : 12/01/2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs by filing Writ Petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:931
"That the transfer issued on basis of
malafide exercise of power be set aside and
issue direction to educational Principal
Secretary for imposing penalty on
Respondent for malfide exercise of power.
(In case of a writ of mandamus).
1. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondent toset aside the
impugned order dated 14.6.2025.
2. Issue any other writ, order or direction as
this Hon'ble Court deems fit."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was transferred
from Primary Teacher, Bawal to Primary Teacher, Gafarda,
situated a considerable distance away. He challenged the
initial transfer order in W.P. No. 22017/2025, wherein this
Court directed the respondent authorities to decide his
representation by a speaking and reasoned order. Pursuant
thereto, the respondents rejected the representation, stating
that the transfer order had been issued on the ground of
administrative requirements. The petitioner thereafter
instituted W.P. No. 31903/2025, contending that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:931
transfer violates the State's Transfer Policy of 2025
applicable to all Government servants.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
he sought information under the RTI Act, 2005 regarding
the basis and policy under which his transfer had been
effected, whereupon the respondents disclosed that
administrative transfers are governed by the Transfer
Policy of 2022. The said policy mandates that transfers be
regulated in accordance with the student-teacher ratio and
subject-wise requirements. The petitioner contends that
subsequent transfers undertaken by the respondents--
specifically, the posting of another Assistant Teacher to his
former position and the attachment of a previously
transferred surplus Teacher to PS Bawal--demonstrate that
his transfer was not undertaken on the basis of the
prescribed student-teacher ratio, thereby contradicting the
stated policy framework.
4. It is further the case of the petitioner that
substantial sums of money are allegedly being collected by
the respondents from teachers in consideration of
favourable transfers and attachments, and that he was
transferred to a distant location due to his refusal to offer
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:931
any such payment. He asserts that information received
under the RTI Act confirms that his transfer contravenes
statutory Rules and is tainted by mala fide exercise of
power. The petitioner also submits that a teacher
previously designated as surplus and lacking the requisite
academic qualifications for the post of Mathematics
Madhyamik Shikshak was nevertheless attached to High
School Bawal and assigned to teach higher-level classes,
raising additional questions regarding the propriety and
legality of the respondent's actions.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that, based
on information furnished under the Right to Information
Act, 2005, the administrative Circulars cited by the
respondents are inapplicable to the petitioner, as the
petitioner does not fall within the categories contemplated
therein. It is contended that the petitioner is neither a
surplus teacher nor covered by the administrative grounds
stipulated for transfer, thereby rendering the reliance on
those provisions misconceived.
6. It is further submitted that subsequent to the
petitioner's transfer, another Assistant Teacher, Rajendra
Jain, was posted at the petitioner's former position, and an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:931
additional teacher, Kalpana Shaktawat, has also been
placed at the same institution. According to the petitioner,
these developments demonstrate that the transfer was not
necessitated by administrative exigency but was motivated
by personal malice, resulting in the petitioner being
displaced to a location approximately 80 kilometer from
the petitioner's residence.
7. The petitioner relied upon the principle laid down
by the Division Bench of this Court in R.S. Choudhary
Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2007(2) ILR MP Series
1329, wherein it was held that transfer is ordinarily an
incident of service unless vitiated by statutory violations or
malafide exercise of power. The petitioner asserts that the
impugned transfer order is tainted with the malafides and
therefore liable to be set aside, and further seeks a
direction for imposition of appropriate penalties upon the
concerned respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner prays
for quashing the transfer order dated 14.06.2025.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
9. This Court has carefully gone through the
submissions advanced by both the parties and the material
placed on record. It appears that the transfer, being an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:931
incidence of service, ordinarily lies within the
administrative discretion of the competent authority.
Interference by the Court is warranted only when the
transfer order is shown to be in violation of statutory
provisions, passed by an incompetent authority, or vitiated
by demonstrable malafides.
10. In Union of India & Anr. v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4
SCC 357, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless the
transfer order violates any mandatory statutory rule or is
vitiated by malafide, Courts should not normally interfere.
Following the same principle, the Supreme Court in Union
of India and another v. N.P. Thomas, 1993 Supp (1)
SCC 704, reiterated that interference in transfer matters at
the instance of an employee holding a transferable post is
impermissible unless statutory breach or malafide is
clearly established.
11. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to
establish any violation of statutory Rules. The Transfer
Policies of 2022 and 2025, relied upon by the petitioner,
operate as administrative guidelines and do not create
enforceable rights in favour of an employee. Deviations
from such administrative instructions, even if assumed, do
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:931
not by themselves confer a legal ground for quashing the
transfer order.
12. As regards the allegation of malafide, the burden of
proof lies heavily upon the petitioner. Allegations must be
specific, supported by cogent material, and the person
against whom malafide is alleged must ordinarily be
impleaded by name. The petitioner has not brought forth
any substantiated evidence to prove personal malice, nor
has he impleaded any officer against whom such
allegations are raised. Mere suspicion or assertion cannot
substitute proof.
13. The posting of subsequent teachers to the
petitioner's previous station, even if factually correct, does
not ipso facto establish malafide. Administrative exigency,
staff redistribution, or internal departmental requirements
fall within the exclusive domain of the employer, and
Courts do not substitute their judgment for that of the
administration.
14. The allegations regarding money being collected for
postings remain unsubstantiated and unsupported by prima
facie evidence. Such serious allegations cannot be
accepted solely on the basis of surmise or conjecture.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:931
15. This Court therefore finds no illegality, statutory
infraction, or proven malafides that would justify
interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to
make out any case warranting interference with the
impugned transfer order. Thus, the writ petition is devoid
of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
17. All pending applications, if any shall be disposed of
accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
rashmi
