IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI

rd

ON THE 3 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 3699 of 2026 ASHWIN GUPTA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCPAL SECRETARY JANJATIYA KARYA VIGHAG MANTRALAY Appearance:

Mr. Anand Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Swati Ukhale, Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

ORDER The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 22/01/2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent authority, whereby the representation of the petitioner against his transfer has been rejected. The petitioner further challenges the initial transfer order dated 18/06/2025 (Annexure P/2), by which he has been transferred from Government Higher Secondary School No. 1, Khargone to Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Dharampuri, District Dhar.

2. The facts, as supplied, indicate that the petitioner is a Class-3 employee currently serving as a Sports Teacher (Physical Education). Vide order dated 18/06/2025, the petitioner was transferred from Khargone to Dhar. In the said order, the petitioner's designation was mentioned as 'PTI' (Physical Training Instructor), whereas the petitioner contends that as per the appointment/gradation order dated 31/12/2018 (Annexure P/3), his substantive post is 'Sports Teacher Physical Education', which is lower in hierarchy than PTI.

3. Records reveal that the petitioner previously approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 21848/2025. This Court, vide order dated 19/06/2025, disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation. In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted a representation on 27/06/2025. During the personal hearing before the Principal Secretary on 31/12/2025, the petitioner raised various grounds, including educational disturbances for his daughter, the health condition of his mother, and clerical errors in the transfer order. However, the respondent authority, vide order dated 22/01/2026, dismissed the representation, affirming the transfer.

4. Counsel for the petitioner primarily contends that the transfer is vitiated by mala fides, as the petitioner was the only employee singled out for transfer. It is further argued that the transfer order (Annexure P/2) suffers from a patent error of fact, as it describes the petitioner as a 'PTI' instead of his actual post, 'Sports Teacher Physical Education'.

5. It is submitted that the transfer is in violation of Clause 9 of the Transfer Policy dated 29/04/2025 and 30/05/2025, having been issued during a restricted period without the requisite competent approval. The petitioner also highlights personal hardships, stating that his daughter, Kumari Oshi Gupta, is a Class 7 student and a registered state-level rifle shooter receiving specialized training in Khargone. Additionally, the petitioner’s mother suffers from severe asthma, requiring his presence. It is lastly contended that despite the Principal Secretary recommending a local adjustment against vacant posts in Khargone, the Minister concerned rejected the same arbitrarily.

6. Per contra, the respondents have vehemently opposed the petition. It is submitted that the transfer has been initiated in the interest of administration and for the purpose of administrative expediency. The respondents maintain that the petitioner holds a transferable post, and no employee has a vested right to remain posted at a particular station. The allegations of mala fides are denied as being baseless and lacking in specific proof. It is further contended that the rejection of the representation followed due application of mind after granting a personal hearing to the petitioner.

7. Heard both parties at length and examined the entire record available.

8. This Court, upon due consideration of the rival submissions and careful examination of the record, find