IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 17 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 32356 of 2025 MANIKESH SHARMA Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Alok Katare - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Shyam Prakash Jain- Advocate for the respondent no.1 & 2.

Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi learned Senior Counsel with Mohammad Amir Khan- Advocate for the respondent no.3.

ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the orders, dated

31.07.2025 (Annexure P/1 & P/2) whereby, he and respondent no.3 have been transferred on the places of each other.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner is holding the post of Sub-Engineer (Technical Division) in M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board (in short “Board”) and was posted at Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Dabra, District Gwalior. The respondent no.3 is also holding the post of Sub-Engineer and was posted at Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Bhitarwar, District Gwalior. Vide order, dated 31.07.2025 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner has been transferred and posted at Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Bhitarwar while the respondent no.3 has been transferred and posted at petitioner's place at Dabra vide order, dated 31.07.2025 (Annexure P/2).

3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned transfer orders on the following grounds:

i. Under Regulation 25 of M.P. Rajya Mandi Board Seva Viniyam, 1998 (in short “Regulations”), the Managing Director only is competent to transfer the employees of the Board. It is his submission that impugned transfer orders have been passed by the Joint Director (Establishment) of the Board who is not competent to pass the impugned orders;

ii. The another ground raised by the petitioner is of frequent transfer inasmuch as within one and a half year, he has been transferred thrice;

iii. The third ground of challenge to the transfer orders is status of the respondent no.3. As per petitioner, the respondent no.3 is the employee of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ambah and by virtue of Section 30(3) of Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam (in short 'Adhiniyam'), he can only be transferred on deputation. However, from the impugned order, it does not appear that the petitioner has been transferred on deputation. It is his submission that the respondent no.3 could not be transferred and posted on his place.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Regulation 25 of the Regulations of 1998 and submitted that it is only the Managing Director who can transfer the petitioner and respondent no.3. He further submitted that mere approval of the Managing Director is not sufficient to justify the transfer orders. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the orders passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Punya Dev Mishra Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors. (W.P. No.2856/2017) & Rajesh Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors. (W.P. No.14545/2019). He also argued that under Section 65(2) of Adhiniyam, the Managing Director could have delegated his powers to respondent no.2, however, there is nothing on record to show that he delegated powers to respondent no.2. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner is the sufferer of frequent transfer inasmuch as on 29.01.2024, he was transferred and posted to Bhander & Seondha Samiti. Immediately within six months, he was transferred to Mandi Samiti, Dabra and now within one year, he is again transferred and posted at Mandi Samiti Bhitarwar. He also submitted that the respondent no.3 is the employee of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ambah and is not the employee of the Board. He argued that under Section 30(3) of Adhiniyam, he can be transferred on deputation only and his transfer on administrative exigency is not permissible. He thus prayed for setting aside of the impugned orders.

5. On other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 &

2 justified the impugned orders. As per his submission, the impugned orders of transfer are duly approve