State-cadre Polytechnic lecturers cannot be transferred absent a permissible statutory contingency or demonstrated administrative exigency.

The appellants were lecturers working in different Government Polytechnic Colleges. They were transferred to other Polytechnic Colleges through separate transfer orders.

Challenging the transfers, they filed writ petitions contending that: (i) the transfers were contrary to Clause 51 of the applicable Transfer Policy; (ii) they were State-cadre employees; (iii) the Polytechnic Colleges had been converted into autonomous societies; and (iv) transfer to another society would amount to deputation or merger, requiring their consent.

The learned Single Judge dismissed or disposed of the writ petitions by orders dated 17 June 2025 and 23 June 2025. The appellants consequently preferred the present writ appeals under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

Whether the appellants, being lecturers in the Government Polytechnic Colleges and State-cadre employees, could be transferred to other Polytechnic Colleges or autonomous societies under the applicable service rules and Government notification?

Whether the impugned transfer orders were legally sustainable in the absence of the circumstances contemplated by Rule 13(11), such as serious illness, failure to perform duties, or a valid deputation/merger arrangement?

Whether the learned Single Judge correctly relied upon Prateek Vajpai v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 13933/2021, decided on 25 August 2021, in upholding or declining to interfere with the transfers?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

It considered the Madhya Pradesh Technical Education Polytechnic College (Teaching Cadre) Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, particularly Rules 6, 11 and 13(11), which regulate the constitution, recruitment and transfer/deputation of teaching-cadre employees.

The Court also applied the State Government Gazette notification dated 22 November 2017, as corrected on 6 December 2017, which governed the transfer or deputation of lecturers working in Government Polytechnic Colleges.

The governing principle applied was that an administrative transfer must have authority under the applicable service rules and cannot be sustained where the statutory or regulatory conditions for transfer are absent.

The Court distinguished Prateek Vajpai v. State of M.P. because that case involved an employee facing complaints, unlike the present appellants.

The Court found from the record that the appellants were lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges and that, in view of the Gazette notification dated 22 November 2017, they could not be transferred in the manner directed by the impugned orders.

The transfer orders did not identify any administrative exigency or other permissible circumstance justifying the appellants’ transfer.

The Court further noted that none of the appellants was facing complaints or disciplinary allegations of the kind involved in Prateek Vajpai; therefore, reliance on that decision by the learned Single Judge was misplaced.

Since the factual basis and legal conditions necessary to sustain the transfers were absent, the learned Single Judge erred in refusing to interfere with the transfer orders.

It set aside the orders dated 17 June 2025 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 20198/2025 and 20130/2025 and the order dated 23 June 2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 20181/2025.

The transfer orders issued against the appellants were quashed, and the appellants were permitted to resume or continue performing their duties at their previous places of posting.

The appeals were accordingly disposed of, with a direction that a copy of the order be placed in the records of the connected appeals.