The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed the transfer and relieving orders of a senior government college professor, holding that shifting an employee within 15 months of retirement without a sanctioned post at the destination institution violated statutory norms.
Delivering the ruling on September 2, Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat held that the transfer of sociology professor Ram Avdesh Sharma was invalid due to procedural breaches surrounding retirement procedures, the lack of an approved post at the receiving college, and the broader administrative context of the decision.
Sharma, who had been stationed at a government college in Bhind for roughly 25 years, was ordered on June 15 to move to Government College, Dhodhar, in Sheopur—approximately 230 to 250 kilometres away. A relieving order followed the next day. He challenged both directives before the High Court.
Lack of Sanctioned Post and Impending Retirement
In setting aside the transfer, the court noted that Sharma had around 15 months of service remaining when the order was issued, with only a year left before his scheduled retirement in September 2027. Justice Bahrawat observed that transferring an employee at the close of their career risks disrupting and delaying the statutory completion of their pension benefits.
The bench also observed that the state government failed to submit sufficient documentation to establish that a sanctioned position for a sociology professor existed at the Sheopur institution. The court clarified that the presence of guest lecturers or available teaching responsibilities does not equate to a formal sanctioned post corresponding to Sharma’s substantive rank.
While the court acknowledged that a 25-year posting in Bhind was a legitimate administrative factor, it ruled that duration alone could not justify the relocation in light of the other compelling circumstances.
Surrounding Administrative Context
The transfer took place against a backdrop of prolonged litigation over the college administration. Sharma had served as the in-charge principal at the Bhind college since May 2024 and had been selected as principal under the state’s PM College of Excellence scheme in November 2024.
The department subsequently appointed a junior professor to the principal’s position. Sharma challenged the move, securing a stay from the High Court in December 2024. In July 2025, the court quashed the junior colleague’s appointment, ruling that a junior professor could not be placed in authority over a senior faculty member.
Representing Sharma, Advocate Prashant Singh Kaurav argued that the transfer, coming on the heels of the successful legal challenge, effectively sidelined the senior professor while permitting the junior colleague to remain in charge. Kaurav also submitted that the authorities had failed to account for his client’s health conditions and proximity to retirement.
State’s Contentions Rejected
Appearing for the Madhya Pradesh government, Additional Advocate General Vivek Khedkar countered that transfers are an ordinary condition of public service and that Sharma held no vested entitlement to stay in Bhind or retain the role of in-charge principal. The state maintained that a sociology opening was available at Sheopur and cited past complaints of alleged financial irregularities against Sharma.
Addressing these points, the High Court clarified that Sharma held no legal right to remain in-charge principal, describing it as an administrative mechanism rather than a substantive post. Consequently, the court did not base its decision on his removal from that role.
However, the bench rejected the state’s reliance on past complaints to defend the order. Justice Bahrawat noted that the unproven allegations of financial irregularities were not specified as grounds in the transfer order itself, nor was any departmental inquiry underway. The court concluded that post-facto references to unsubstantiated allegations could not be used to justify an otherwise invalid transfer.
