Introduction:

In the case of Naseem Uddin v. State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P) And Others, Writ Petition No. 11441 of 2025, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition challenging a transfer order on grounds of religious discrimination. Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed that unsubstantiated allegations of communal bias in administrative decisions could lead to a breakdown of state machinery. The Court noted that the petitioner, Incharge Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology, Ratlam, failed to demonstrate mala fide intention in his transfer to Chhindwara and was only attempting to stall his relocation after nearly a decade in the same posting.

Arguments:

The petitioner claimed that his transfer was politically motivated and that he was singled out due to his Muslim identity at the behest of a BJP leader. He alleged a violation of his constitutional rights under Article 14, arguing that the decision was discriminatory. Conversely, the State argued that the petitioner was attempting to exploit his religious identity to resist a routine transfer. The counsel for the State emphasized that mere transfer of multiple individuals from the same community does not constitute religious bias. Further, it was highlighted that the petitioner had avoided transfer for 9 to 10 years despite policy provisions mandating relocation after three years.

Court’s Judgment:

The Court found that the petitioner’s allegations were baseless and noted that no other transferred individuals had joined him in contesting the decision. The petitioner’s extended tenure in Ratlam and reluctance to relocate, despite transfer policies, indicated an attempt to evade legitimate administrative orders. The Court also observed that non-Muslim employees, including a woman, were transferred alongside the petitioner, further negating claims of religious discrimination. Additionally, the petitioner had previously been given additional charge under the same government, reinforcing the absence of malice. The Court concluded that accepting such unfounded allegations would disrupt governance and dismissed the petition, holding that the transfer was lawful and justified.