Devraj Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1 WA-1813-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
th
ON THE 9 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 1737 of 2025
DR RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY
Versus
STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Sharma - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Aditya
Khandekar - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Piyush Jain - Government Advocate for State/respondents.
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 1736 of 2025
SANJEEV KUMAR SAXENA
Versus
STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Sharma - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Aditya
Khandekar - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Piyush Jain - Government Advocate for State/respondents.
WRIT APPEAL No. 1813 of 2025
DEVRAJ VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 09-09-2026
16:11:56

2 WA-1813-2025
Appearance:


Shri Rohit Sohgaura - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Piyush Jain - Government Advocate for State/respondents.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
With consent, heard finally.
2. The present writ appeals under Section 2(1) of the Madhya
Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,
2005 have been preferred by the appellants being crestfallen by the order
dated 17.06.2025 passed in Writ Petition Nos.20198/2025 and 20130/2025
and order dated 23.06.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 20181/2025,
whereby writ petitions filed by appellants as petitioners against their transfer
orders were respectively got dismissed and disposed of by learned Writ
Court.
3 . Precisely stated facts of these cases are that the appellants are
working as lecturer in different Polytechnic Colleges and they were
transferred to different Polytechnic Colleges vide different transfer orders.
Being aggrieved by the said transfer orders, all the appellants preferred
different writ petitions before this Court on the grounds that they could not
have been transferred as per Clause 51 of Transfer Policy. It is also claimed
that all appellants are in State cadre employee and all the polytechnic
colleges have been converted into autonomous societies, therefore, their
transfer would amount to deputation, which could not be ordered without
their consent.
4. It is further claimed by appellants on placing reliance on M.P.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 09-09-2026
16:11:56

3 WA-1813-2025
Technical Education Polytechnic College (Teaching Cadre) Service

(Recruitment) Rules, 2004 that the erstwhile Cadre of lecturers in
Polytechnic Colleges has been converted into dying cadre. It is also
contended that appellants are transferred to another Polytechnic Colleges,
which would amount to deputation, for which their consent would be
required. By further placing reliance on the Rules of 2004 as amended vide
amendment of 2017 dated 22.11.2017 as corrected vide corrigendum dated
06.12.2017, it is claimed that the appellants could only have been
transferred: in terms of Rule 13 (11) (C) which confers general power on the
State Govt. to transfer by way of deputation from one Society to another.
5. It is claimed that their transfer orders have been issued in terms of
Rule 13 (11) (A); whereas the said provision only relates to power of transfer
being with the State Govt. upon serious illness or disability and not
otherwise. It is also contended that the present cases are not cases of illness
or disability, therefore, the State Govt. could not have transferred the
appellants as the provision under which they have been transferred does not
grant any authority or competence to the State as the grounds of transfer
available under the said provision do not exist in the cases of appellants.
6 . Per contra, aforesaid contentions raised by appellants were
opposed by learned counsel for the State by contending that despite being a
State cadre employee, the appellants could be transferred to another
autonomous polytechnic college because the autonomous polytechnic
colleges are also owned and control by the State and only for proper
management autonomous management bodies have been formed. It is further
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 09-09-2026
16:11:56

4 WA-1813-2025
argued that the appellants are only holding officiating current charge of

Principal during absence of regular Principal only on account of being a
senior most Lecturer, does not create any right to the appellants to stick to
current charge and criticize their transfer orders.
7. Learned writ Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties
and appreciating the evidence led by parties, decided the writ petitions
preferred by appellants vide impugned orders as mentioned hereinabove.
Hence, appellants are before this Court.
8. It is the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellants
that Rule 6 and 11 of the M.P. Technical Education Polytechnic College
(Teaching Cadre) Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 clearly states that the
posts of lecturer are to be filled by direct recruitment and therefore, the intent
of the legislature is that the society cadre posts are to be filled by societies
through direct recruitment and not be transfer.
9. It is also contended that the State has amended the MP Technical
Education Polytechnic College(Teaching Cadre) Service (Recruitment)
Rules, 2004 on 22.11.2017, wherein it has been provided that in cases of
serious illness or any disease such as cancer, kidney failure etc. an applicant
can submit an application along with no objection certificates from both the
institutions i.e. where the applicant is .working and where he wishes to
render his service and in such cases he can be sent on deputation/ merger to
another society or if the employee fails to perform the duties assigned to
him. In the present case, the appellants have not submitted any ‘such
representation for deputation/ merger nor any show cause or any indication
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 09-09-2026
16:11:56

5 WA-1813-2025
that they have not performed their duties has ever been issued to them.

10. It is further contended that Rule 13(11)(a)(iii) clearly stipulates
that the cases under sub-clause (i) and (ii)can only be considered when the
same vacant post/ class of post is available. Rule 13(11)(b) is applicable only
when an officer or employee fails to perform his duties and in the present
case, no such allegation or enquiry is pending against the appellants.
Although, sub-rule (v) of Rule 13(11) is applicable for deputation of
government cadre employees and for deputation, the consent of the officer
concerned is essential.
11. It is also submitted that learned Single Bench failed to exercise
its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure
that injustice caused by administrative arbitrariness. There is no material on
record to show that administrative exigencies or public interest justified such
a transfer. Hence, impugned orders passed by learned writ Court are
erroneous, contrary to mandate of Rules of 2004 and against the settled
provisions of law, therefore, learned senior counsel for appellants prays for
setting aside of impugned orders.
12. Per contra, learned Government Advocate opposed the
contentions by supporting the findings recorded by learned writ Court and
prayed for dismissal of appeals. In support of his contentions, learned
counsel for State has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court as well as
of Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, prayed for dismissal of these appeals.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
impugned orders as well as other documents appended thereto.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 09-09-2026
16:11:56

6 WA-1813-2025
14. From the perusal of record, it appears that appellants are working

on the post of lecturers in different Government Polytechnic Colleges,
therefore, as per Gazette Notification dated 22.11.2017 issued by State
Government, they cannot be transferred. From the perusal of transfer orders
of appellants, it also transpires that no contingency was mentioned in their
transfer orders to show that there is any exigency to transfer appellants from
their present place of posting.
15. So far as the judgment relied upon by learned writ Court in the
case of Prateek Vajpai Vs. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 13933/2021 decided on
25.08.2021), MPLJ Online 74, is concerned, learned writ Court committed
error in relying on said decision because it is not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present appeals because Prateek Vajpayi was facing
complaints; whereas in the present cases, appellants are not facing any such
complaints.
16. By overlooking the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
cases, learned writ Court committed error in passing the impugned orders,
which are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, deserves to be aside.
17. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case,
coupled with the fact that only at two places subject of Mining Engineering
is available but nobody joined in place of appellants and one of the
appellants is absorbed in Chhindwara Polytechnic College, all these appeals
are allowed and impugned order dated 17.06.2025 passed in Writ Petition
Nos.20198/2025 and 20130/2025 and order dated 23.06.2025 passed in Writ
Petition No. 20181/2025 are set aside. In consequence thereof, transfer
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 09-09-2026
16:11:56

7 WA-1813-2025
orders of present appellants are also hereby quashed. Appellants are

permitted to perform their duties on their previous places of postings.
18. With the aforesaid observations, these appeals stand disposed
of.
19. Copy of this order shall be kept in the record of connected
appeals.
(ANAND PATHAK)
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
JUDGE
skt

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 09-09-2026
16:11:56