A transfer order, absent malafide intent or clear violation of statutory provisions, is not subject to judicial interference.

ORDER :

1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is posted as Incharge Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology, Ratlam, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

“A. The present writ petition may kindly be allowed.

B. Issue appropriate writ, direction or order and quash the impugned order dated 13/03/2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) passed by Respondent no.02 and impugned order dated 17/03/2025 (ANNEXURE P/2) passed by Respondent no.03 for being in the teeth of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

C. Issue appropriate writ, direction or order calling for records of impugned order dated 13/03/2025 and Annexure P/4, for quashing the same.

D. Issue appropriate writ, direction or order holding that the impugned order dated 13/03/2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) is patently illegal and smacks of malafide.

E. That any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit may also be kindly given to the Petitioner.”

3. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order of transfer dated 13.03.2025, whereby he has been transferred from Ratlam to Chhindwara on the said post of In-charge Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology. The petitioner has filed this petition on the ground of mala fide on the part of the respondents, as his contention is that his transfer is politically motivated, and only because he belongs to Muslim community, he has been transferred at the instance of the local leader of the Bhartiya Janta Party (hereinafter referred to as the BJP) who is also arrayed as the respondent no.5. The petitioner has also relied upon a document (Annexure P/4), which is stated to be the recommendation of transfer of the petitioner and other four persons to some other place, all of whom are also Muslims and posted at Ratlam. The petitioner’s contention is that on the ground of religion, he and other persons have been discriminated by the State, and have been transferred from Ratlam to some other districts which is in violation of his rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. Shri Shanmukh Bachu, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the transfer is in violation of the transfer policy also, as the transfer has been effected in the ban period. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Pubi Lombi v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 279 to submit that he has also made the private persons as the party respondents as he has alleged mala fide on their part.

5. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer, and it is submitted that the petition itself is filed with mala fide intention of taking undue benefit of the petitioner’s religion, and communal colour is being given to a normal order of transfer. It is also submitted that merely if four persons of one community from one place have been transferred to other places, it cannot be deemed to be a transfer with mala fide intention. Thus, it is submitted that the petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed with costs.

6. Heard. Having considered the rival submissions, and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that although the petitioner has made serious allegations of communal bias in transferring him and the other persons from Ratlam, but, admittedly, no other persons, whose names have also been mentioned in the petition, have joined him in his cause.

7. On perusal of the petition, it is also found that the petitioner’s initial appointment at Ratlam was way back on 07.09.2015, when he was posted as Inspector, Legal Metrology, Ratlam, thus admittedly, he has not been transferred to any other place since last around 9 to 10 years, despite there being a provision under Clause 16 and 17 of the Transfer Policy, which is filed on record, that a government employee may be transferred from one place to another on completion of three years. Thus, when the petitioner has