[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepa Kumawat vs State Of M.P. on 6 March, 2026
1 W.P. No. 7613/2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6075
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No. 7613 of 2026
DEEPA KUMAWAT
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat - Advocate for the petitioner
Shri Kushagra Singh - Deputy Government Advocate for the
respondents State.
Reserved on :- 26.02.2026
Post on :- 06 .03.2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its
extraordinary writ jurisdiction to challenge the impugned order dated
24.02.2026 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been
transferred from Government College, Jeeran to Government College,
Rampura.
2. The facts, as emerges from the record, are that the petitioner
joined the services of the respondents in the year 2011 at Khategaon,
District Dewas. Over the course of her service, she has been subjected
to various transfers and deployments. She was transferred to Neemuch
PG College in 2012, deployed multiple times to Singoli in 2016, and
subsequently to Bhanpura. In 2018, an order transferring her to Kusmi
(Rewa Division) was issued but later cancelled, after which she was
transferred to Government College, Jeeran. Thereafter, she was
deployed to Rampura (2022), Malhargarh (2022), and Neemuch (2023).
Pursuant to an order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 36001/2024, a re-
posting order was issued on 20.01.2025, posting her back to Jeeran.
3. The petitioner is currently serving as the In-charge Principal at
Government College, Jeeran. While functioning in this capacity, the
petitioner allegedly uncovered certain financial irregularities in the
College involving another Professor, respondent No. 4. It is stated that
the petitioner holds the relevant papers and has informed respondent No.
2 regarding wrong complaints being made against her by respondent
No. 4. Despite submitting representations, the impugned transfer order
was issued on 24.02.2026, transferring the petitioner to Government
College, Rampura, within 14 months of her last posting.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
impugned transfer is a mid-term transfer issued at a time when College
examinations are scheduled to commence from 17th March, thereby
disrupting academic administration as the petitioner is the In-charge
Principal. It is further contended that the order violates the Transfer
Policy of the State Government for the year 2025-2026, having been
issued within a short span of 14 months from her previous posting dated
20.01.2025. The counsel vehemently argued that the petitioner has been
subjected to frequent and successive transfers and deployments since
2016, which demonstrates arbitrariness, non-application of mind, and
colourable exercise of power. It is alleged that the transfer is punitive
and mala fide, orchestrated because the petitioner uncovered financial
irregularities and due to the false complaints made by respondent No. 4.
The petitioner asserts that her representations have not been considered
by the respondents. In support of these contentions, reliance has been
placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in E. P.
Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 555, (1974) 4 SCC 3,
N.K. Singh v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 423, (1994) 6 SCC 98,
State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India
AIR 2004 SC 2165, (2004) 11 SCC 402, and Shilpi Bose v. State of
Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 to contend that
arbitrary, punitive, and mala fide transfers violating Fundamental Rights
under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution are liable to be
quashed.
5. Per contra, the stand of the respondents, as emerging from the
reply, is that the petition is strongly opposed. The respondents contend
that there is no violation of the transfer policy and no mala fide involved
in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner has merely been
transferred to another Institution within the same District purely on
account of administrative exigency, and not for any extraneous
considerations.
6. Having heard the rival contentions and upon a careful perusal of
the record, this Court finds that the law regarding judicial interference in
matters of transfer is no longer res integra. Transfer is an incidence of
service, and it is entirely for the employer to decide when, where, and at
what point of time a public servant is to be transferred from their present
posting. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent pronouncement of Sri
Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No.
4129 of 2024 (decided on 13.03.2024), has exhaustively reviewed the
jurisprudence on transfers. Reaffirming the principles laid down in
Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Abbas; (1993) 4 SCC 357 and
N.K. Singh v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 423, (1994) 6 SCC 98, the
Hon'ble Apex Court authoritatively held that the scope of judicial
review is available only when there is a clear violation of statutory
provisions or when the transfer is vitiated by mala fides. The Hon'ble
Apex Court explicitly observed that the non-observation of executive
instructions or transfer guidelines does not confer a legally enforceable
right upon an employee holding a transferable post.
7. Crucially, summarizing the legal position, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court Sri Pubi Lombi (supra) held as under:-
" 10. In view of the foregoing enunciation of law by judicial decisions of
this Court, it is clear that in absence of:-
(i) pleadings regarding malafide,
(ii) non-joining the person against whom allegation are made,
(iii) violation of any statutory provision,
(iv) the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who
is holding a transferrable post, judicial interference is not warranted. In
the sequel of the said settled norms, the scope of judicial review is not
permissible by the Courts in exercising of the jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India."
8. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the factual matrix of
the present case, this Court finds no merit in the challenge to the
impugned order. The fulcrum of the petitioner's argument rests on the
assertion that the transfer is mid-term, within 14 months of the previous
posting, and in violation of the State's Transfer Policy for 2025-2026.
However, it is a well-settled proposition of law that Transfer policies
and Guidelines are merely executive instructions. A deviation from such
guidelines, even if assumed to be true in the present case, does not vest
the petitioner with a statutory right to seek the quashing of the transfer
order through a writ of certiorari.
9. Furthermore, the petitioner has alleged that the transfer is a
punitive measure stemming from her discovery of financial
irregularities and complaints made by respondent No. 4. While the
petitioner has narrated a history of frequent postings since 2016, the
current transfer is from Government College, Jeeran to Government
College, Rampura, which is situated within the very same District. The
pleadings and material on record are insufficient to establish malice in
fact or law on the part of the competent authority issuing the order.
Mere bald allegations regarding financial irregularities or interpersonal
disputes with a colleague do not automatically vitiate an administrative
order of transfer unless corroborated by cogent material proving that the
transferring authority acted with a vindictive motive. The respondents
have categorically stated that the transfer is necessitated by
administrative exigency, and the employer is the best judge to assess the
suitability and placement of its personnel. Consequently, this Court
finds no jurisdictional error, statutory violation, or proven mala fide that
would justify interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court.
10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the present writ petition, being
devoid of merit and lacking any permissible ground for judicial
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hereby
dismissed.
11. However, taking into consideration the specific grievance raised
by the petitioner regarding the mid-term nature of the transfer and the
impending College examinations scheduled to commence from 17th
March, 2026 where the petitioner is acting as the In-charge Principal,
liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit a fresh, detailed
representation before the competent authority/respondent No. 2 within a
period of one week, from today. If such a representation is preferred, the
competent authority is directed to consider and decide the same in
accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the representation, keeping
in view the administrative exigencies and the fact that the educational
academic year is drawing to a close. It is also made clear that till the
representation is decided, the petitioner shall not be disturbed from the
current place of posting i.e Government College, Jeeran.
12. Pending applications shall be disposed off accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
rashmi*PS
