[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Suraj Narayan Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18198
1 WP-7042-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 6 th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 7042 of 2026
SHRI SURAJ NARAYAN PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bramha Nand Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Girish Kekre - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This is the second visit of the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner had
filed a petition before this Court vide W.P. No.22203/2025 assailing the
order of transfer dated 16.06.2025 by which the petitioner was sought to be
transferred from Rewa to Satna. The said petition was disposed of vide order
dated 24.06.2025 while directing the respondent therein to take a decision on
the petitioner's representation and till decision, interim protection was also
granted to the petitioner. Now vide impugned order dated 28.01.2026
(Annexure P/13), the representation of the petitioner has been turned down.
2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the representation has been
turned down in a mechanical manner without adverting to the grounds which
were taken recourse to by the petitioner in the representation. It is contended
by the counsel that the authority has not taken into consideration the tenure
of the petitioner at a particular place and therefore, the impugned order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18198
2 WP-7042-2026
deserves to be set aside.
3. Per contra, Shri Kekre submits that a perusal of the impugned order
clearly reflects that the petitioner is posted at Rewa since 23.07.2019.
Therefore, upon completion of 6 years, the petitioner has been transferred.
The exercise has been carried out in view of the administrative exigency.
Thus, no interference is required with the impugned order.
4. Having considered the submissions, a perusal of the record reflects
that in previous round of litigation, the petition was disposed of with a
direction to the respondent No.1 therein to decide the petitioner's
representation dated 17.06.2025. The representation dated 17.06.2025
contained in Annexure P/6 is reproduced hereinbelow:
"सेवा म,
ीमान ् आबकार आयु , म य दे श, वािलयर।
ारा:उपायु आबकार , संभागीय उड़नद ता र वा।
वषय: थाना तरण िनर त कराने वाबत ्।
संदभ :- म य दे श शासन, वा ण यक कर वभाग,
मं ालय, व लभ भवन, भोपाल - 462004 का आदे श पृ ांकन
मांकः एफ 1/1/41/0029/2025-Sec-2-05 (CT) भोपाल,
दनांक 16.06.2025.
महोदय,
वषयांतगत िनवेदन है क उपरो संदिभत आदे श से मेरा
थाना तरण कायालय उपायु आबकार संभागीय
उड़नद ता, र वा से जला आबकार कायालय सतना कया
गया है जस संबंध म मेरा िनवेदन िन नानुसार है :-
1. मेर प ी अपने पता क इकलौती संतान है उनके माता-
पता काफ वृ एवं अ व थ रहते ह। जो र वा म मेरे साथ म
ह रहते ह। उनके परव रश क स पूण ज मेदार मेरे ऊपर
है ।
2. मेरे पु एवं पु ी वतमान म र वा से बाहर रहकर िश ा
हण कर रहे ह।
3. मेर प ी िश ा वभाग म वग-एक के पद पर शासक य
मात ड उ चतर मा यिमक व ालय मांक 3 र वा म
पद थ है एवं उ ह िश ण काय हे तु ित दन व ालय जाना
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18198
3 WP-7042-2026
पड़ता है ।
4. उ थाना तरण पर य द म सतना म रहकर शासक य
सेवा करता हू ँ तो मेरा र वा म रहना संभव नह ं हो सकेगा।
जस कारण मेरे सास-ससुर क सेवा भी नह ं हो सकेगी। जो
अ यंत वृ है तथा अ व थ रहते ह जनका इलाज र वा म ह
चल रहा है ।
अतः ीमान जी से िनवेदन है क मेरा उपरो ानुसार कया
गया थाना तरण िनर त कराने क कृ पा क जाय। य द
ऐसा कया गया तो म और मेरा प रवार आपका सदै व
आभार रहे गा।
आवेदन प सहानुभूितपूवक वचार करने हे तु सादर े षत।"
5. A perusal of the aforesaid reflects that in the entire representation,
the petitioner has not taken recourse to a ground that he had hardly worked
for one year. The other grounds which were referred to in the representation
were dealt with by the authority while passing the impugned order. The
authority, while rejecting the representation, has held that the petitioner is
posted since 23.07.2019 and the transfer order is in consonance with clause
17 of the transfer policy and the order has been issued in view of the
administrative exigency.
6. It is undisputed that transfer is an incident of service and
interference with an order of transfer is warranted only when the same is
vitiated by mala fide or is in violation of any statutory provision. The scope
of judicial review in matters of transfer is limited, as consistently held by the
Apex Court in a catena of decisions. [Please See: Union of India and Others
v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and
others, (2001) 5 SCC 508, Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State
of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104, State of U.P. and Others v.
Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 1 SCC 402,Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P.
and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. G.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18198
4 WP-7042-2026
Venkata 4 WP. No. 4738/2017 (Braj Kishore Paliwal Vs. State of M.P. and
others) Ratnam, (2008) 9 SCC 345 and State of Haryana and Others v.
Kashmir Singh and Another, (2010) 13 SCC 306].
7. Thus, this Court is of view that such an order dated 28.01.2026
(Annexure P/13) passed by the authority rejecting the representation of the
petitioner does not require any interference. Thus, in the absence of any
infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, the petition stands dismissed.
No order as to costs
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vc
