IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

th

ON THE 18 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 468 of 2026 SANJAY TOMAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arun Dudawat - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Vivek Khedkar - Senior counsel/AAG with Shri Kartik Karara - Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER Per: Justice Anand Pathak

1. With consent, heard finally.

2. This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been preferred by appellant/petitioner assailing the order dated 03.02.2026 passed by learned Writ Court in W.P. No.3958/2026; whereby, writ petition filed by present appellant challenging the rejection of his representation against transfer has been dismissed.

3. Precisely stated facts of the case, in short, are that appellant, working on the post of Training Officer (Fitter) since 2017, was transferred from Divisional Office, Gwalior to ITI Vijaypur, District Sheopur vide order dated 10.06.2025 (Annexure P/5 of writ petition).

4. He initially challenged the transfer by filing WP No.21852/2025 on the ground that he is serving as Secretary of M.P. ITI Technical Employees Union (for brevity 'the Union') since March, 2024 and, therefore, in view of Clause 33 of the Transfer Policy dated 29.05.2025, he is entitled to immunity from transfer. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider his representation. However, his representation was thereafter rejected on 01.12.2025 (Annexure P/9 of Writ Petition) citing administrative exigency, particularly, shortage of staff at ITI Vijaypur.

5. Aggrieved, he again filed WP No.3958/2026, which was dismissed by learned Writ Court vide impugned order dated 03.02.2026 holding that the transfer was made on administrative exigency and that Clause 33 of the Transfer Policy does not impose an absolute bar on transfer. Hence, appellant/petitioner is before this court.

6. It is the submission of counsel for appellant that learned Writ Court erred in dismissing the writ petition without appreciating that appellant has been serving as Secretary of the Union since March, 2024 in his first term and is thus entitled to immunity under Clause 33 of the Transfer Policy dated 29.05.2025. It is further submitted that order dated 01.12.2025 rejecting his representation is arbitrary and wrongly records that he has been an office bearer for eight years. It is further contended that respondent No.3, who allegedly passed the said order dated 01/12/2025, had already superannuated on 30.11.2025 and therefore lacked authority to do so. It is further urged that appellant has not yet been relieved and is continuing at Gwalior, and that his father is seriously ill and undergoing medical treatment, which would cause grave hardship if he is compelled to join at Vijaypur. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the transfer order be quashed.

7. Per contra, counsel for respondents/State supported the impugned order and submitted that appellant has been posted at Gwalior since 2017, i.e., for about nine years, and that due to transfer of another employee from Vijaypur to Gwalior, there arose a shortage of staff at Vijaypur. Therefore, the appellant was transferred on account of administrative exigency. It is further submitted that Clause 33 of the Transfer Policy does not grant absolute immunity and is always subject to administrative requirements. It is also contended that the transfer policy, being executive in nature, does not confer any enforceable right upon appellant. Hence, it is prayed that the writ appeal be dismissed.

8. Heard the counsel for parties and perused the record appended thereto.

9 . Transfer is an incident of service. No one, much less appellant/petitioner, has any vested right to be posted at a particular place of posting. It is well settled in law that employer is the best judge to organize its work force