The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur recently dismissed a writ petition filed by Anil Kumar Sharma, a Panchayat Secretary, challenging his transfer order. The petitioner had contested his relocation from Gram Panchayat Bairiha to Gram Panchayat Gada, arguing that it violated Clause 26 of the state’s Transfer Policy and ignored his disability. However, the court ruled in favor of the state, emphasizing administrative necessity.
Background of the Case
The petitioner was initially transferred on June 17, 2025, which he challenged in an earlier writ petition (W.P. No.23002/2025). The court disposed of that petition on July 9, 2025, directing the authorities to review his representation. On July 28, 2025, the representation was rejected, leading to the current petition. Sharma contended that his transfer disregarded Clause 26 of the Transfer Policy, which addresses disability considerations. He also claimed that other Panchayat Secretaries with longer tenures were not transferred, suggesting unfair treatment.
Justice Maninder S. Bhatti noted that the authorities had passed a "speaking and well-reasoned order" while rejecting Sharma’s representation. The court highlighted that Clause 26 of the Transfer Policy is not mandatory and does not grant employees the right to demand a specific posting based on disability.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Directs Inclusion of Dragon Boat Racing in Khelo India Water Sports Festival
"The representation of the petitioner has been considered by the respondents/authorities by a speaking and well-reasoned order... issued in administrative exigency," the court stated.
The judge further observed that the transfer was justified by administrative needs, which take precedence over individual claims. The court found no merit in the petitioner’s argument about unequal treatment, as transfers are discretionary and context-specific.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Sharma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 31471 of 2025
