Rajaram Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:25029
1 WP-36734-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
th
ON THE 8 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 36734 of 2026
RAJARAM PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Astha Nagori - Panel lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order
dated 25.08.2026 whereby the representation against the order of transfer has
been rejected.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is working as
Middle Teacher under the auspices of the respondent department and he is
posted as Middle Teacher, Government Middle School Matmur, Block
Rajpur. The respondents have passed an order on 15.06.2026 whereby the
petitioner was transferred from said place to Government Middle School
Kanjakua, Block Barwani, which is around 100 km from his present place of
posting. The petitioner being aggrieved by his transfer filed WP
No.21880/2026 before this Court which was disposed off vide order dated
02.07.2026 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of
the petitioner and till then the petitioner was permitted to work at his present
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 09-09-2026
19:11:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:25029
2 WP-36734-2026
place of posting. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court the petitioner

submitted a representation on 06.07.2026 thereby raising three grounds:-
(i) That, he is disabled to the extent of 45% ;
(ii) That, the wife of the petitioner is also a Public Servant working as
teacher in integrated Government Middle School, Salikala, Vikaskhand
Rajpur which is around 3 km from the present place of posting of the
petitioner.;
(iii) That, the place where the petitioner is now being directed to be
posted is situated at a distance which is more than 60 km thus, the petitioner
being a disabled person will not be able to commute to that place considering
that his residence is at Sendhwa.
3. The above said representation of the petitioner has been rejected
by the respondent No.2 by the impugned order passed on 25.08.2026 and the
petitioner was thus, relieved vide order dated 27.08.2026 (Annexure P/1 &
P/2).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents
while rejecting the representation of the petitioner has simply observed that
same was not found satisfactory thus, while rejecting the same the order of
transfer is kept intact and petitioner is directed to join at the transfer place.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the three aspects
which have been raised by the petitioner in the representation are addressed
in the impugned order. He submits that the petitioner is a handicapped person
thus, it was not a regular exercise which was to be carried out by the
respondents while considering the case of transfer of an employee. However,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 09-09-2026
19:11:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:25029
3 WP-36734-2026
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case impact of transfer

to a distance place considering that the wife of the petitioner is also working
as a teacher was required to be taken into account which has not been done
by the respondents at all. He thus, submits that the impugned order plainly
fails in the test of reasonableness and thus, deserves to be quashed. Also
considering the fact that petitioner is handicapped to a degree of 45% in view
of the disability certificate (Annexure P/4) issued by Department of
Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, Government of India, the original order of transfer passed on
15.06.2026 also deserves to be quashed to the extent it relates to the
petitioner, as the same has been passed without considering the disability of
the petitioner & the fact that his wife is also a teacher working in the
respondent department.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State supports the
impugned order and submits that in an administrative exercise reasons are
not always are to be assigned. She submits that satisfaction was to be
recorded by the authority which has duly been recorded by passing the
impugned order. The ground which have been raised by the petitioner in his
representation have duly been considered and the authorities did not find any
of those grounds such that the order of transfer of the petitioner was required
to be cancelled thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order. She also
submits that transfer is an incidence of service thus, the petitioner has to
abide by the order of his transfer which has no adverse or civil consequences
as the petitioner will continue to get his salary in the same manner and same
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 09-09-2026
19:11:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:25029
4 WP-36734-2026
quantum at the transferred place also. Hence, she submits that present

petition deserves to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. This petition is being decided finally at motion stage for the
reason that the order deciding the representation has assigned no reasons and
as per the settled position of law this order cannot be supported by
supplementing reasons which are not there in the order rejecting the
representation.
7. A perusal of the order passed by the respondent No.2 on
25.08.2026 would show that only consideration which has been recorded in
the entire order is that the representation is not found satisfactory. The
disability of the petitioner to the extent of 45% is neither being disputed nor
it has been observed that under what circumstances the protection given to
disabled persons by the Parliament by enacting Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 and protection given by the State Government. Even
in the transfer policy dated 22.05.2026 are not applicable in the present case.
8. Though this Court is conscious to the fact that in an order of
transfer no reasons are required to be assigned but once this Court has given
a clear direction to decide the representation of the petitioner it was
incumbent upon the authority to deal with the submissions raised by the
petitioner in its representation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s
Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd and Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 has held in paras 12, 14, 15 and 47 of the said
judgment as under :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 09-09-2026
19:11:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:25029
5 WP-36734-2026
"12. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in
support of its decision came up for consideration before this Court
in several cases. Initially this Court recognised a sort of
demarcation between administrative orders and quasi-judicial
orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two
got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point
in the judgment of this Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of
India [(1969) 2 SCC 262 : AIR 1970 SC 150] .

14. The expression “speaking order” was first coined by Lord
Chancellor Earl Cairns in a rather strange context. The Lord
Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of the writ of certiorari,
referred to orders with errors on the face of the record and pointed
out that an order with errors on its face, is a speaking order. (See
pp. 1878-97, Vol. 4, Appeal Cases 30 at 40 of the Report).

15. This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a
quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority
affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the
“inscrutable face of a sphinx”.

47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:


(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record
reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support
of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the
wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it
must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on
any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial
or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the
decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding
extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
component of a decision-making process as observing
principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and
even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by
superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to
rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually
the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the
principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be
as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them.
All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 09-09-2026
19:11:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:25029
6 WP-36734-2026
demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been
objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the
litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid
enough about his/her decision-making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to
the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and
succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is
not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non
of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in
decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-
makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to
broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial
Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37] .)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from
the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said
requirement is now virtually a component of human rights
and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence.
See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at
562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA
Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the
European Convention of Human Rights which requires,
“adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial
decisions”.
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital
role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the
decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due
process”.

9. Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the
impugned order rejecting the representation of the petitioner suffers from
unreasonableness as it has not assigned any reasons for rejecting the
representation of the petitioner. Consequently, the same is not sustainable in
the eyes of law, hence the same is hereby quashed. Consequent relieving vide
order dated 27.08.2026 is also quashed. Considering that the petitioner is &
suffering from disability to the extent of 45% & his wife is also working in
respondent department & presently posted at a place which is around 3 km
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 09-09-2026
19:11:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:25029
7 WP-36734-2026
away from the present place of posting. The order of transfer of the petition

(Annexure P/3) passed on 15.06.2026 to the extent as it relates to the
petitioner is also hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to let the
petitioner continue at his present place of posting.
With the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed off.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
akanksha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 09-09-2026
19:11:54