The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed the transfer and relieving orders of a professor at a government college in the state, noting that his at the fag end of his service, with approximately 15 months remaining until retirement.The court ruled the transfer invalid due to statutory violations of pension rules near retirement, the absence of a sanctioned post at the new institution, and the surrounding administrative circumstances.Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat was dealing with a plea of a sociology professor and “in-charge principal” in the state’s government college seeking quashing of his transfer order. The professor earlier challenged the appointment of a junior colleague as a principal over him in the college.“The fact that the petitioner has remained posted at Bhind for about twenty-five years is also a relevant administrative consideration. However, that circumstance alone cannot justify the present transfer when other important circumstances are also present. In particular, the petitioner was, at the time of issuing the transfer order, at the fag end of his service, with approximately fifteen months remaining for retirement, and now there remains only one year. The pension-related process has also to be completed during this period,” the court said on September 2.Also Read | Transferred twice in 4 days, Karnataka High Court backs inspector’s second moveThe court clarified that the petitioner held no vested right to continue as “in-charge principal,” as it is merely an administrative arrangement and not a substantive post. Thus, the transfer was not quashed on that basis, but rather due to the cumulative weight of the statutory violations, missing sanctioned post, and upcoming retirement.Dispute over appointment of junior, transfer orderRam Avdesh Sharma, a professor of sociology, has been serving as the in-charge principal of a government college in Bhind since May 2024. He was selected as principal under the Madhya Pradesh Government’s PM College of Excellence scheme in November 2024. Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat said that transferring an employee at the fag end of their career risks delaying their retirement benefits.However, the department later appointed a junior professor as principal. The petitioner challenged the appointment, and the high court stayed it in December 2024. In July 2025, the court quashed the junior’s appointment and directed that a junior professor should not be appointed over a senior.Story continues below this adWhile litigation over the principal’s post was pending, the department transferred the petitioner on June 15, from a college in Bhind, to a government college in Sheopur, around 230–250 km away. The transfer order was followed by a relieving order the next day. The petitioner challenged both orders before the high court.Arguments of partiesAppearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Singh Kaurav argued that there was no sanctioned post of sociology professor at Sheopur.He submitted that the petitioner was due to retire in September 2027, and that his health concerns and proximity to retirement had not been considered. He also alleged that the transfer, coming after his successful challenge to the appointment of the junior professor, effectively enabled the junior to continue as principal.Appearing for the state, Additional Advocate General Vivek Khedkar opposed the plea, saying a sociology post was available at Sheopur, and transfer was an ordinary incident of service, and the petitioner had no vested right to remain at Bhind or continue as In-charge principal. It also cited complaints of alleged financial irregularities against him.Story continues below this adOnly 15 months of service remaining: OrderThe court observed that the petitioner was nearing retirement with approximately 15 months of service remaining at the time of the transfer order. “Transferring an employee at the fag end of their career risks delaying their retirement benefits,” it added.The court observed that the state failed to provide sufficient material proving the existence of a sanctioned post for “professor (sociology)” at the transferee institution (Government College, Dhodhar). Merely having guest faculty or available teaching work in the subject does not establish a sanctioned post corresponding to the petitioner’s substantive position.While acknowledging that mala fide cannot be automatically presumed just because a transfer follows litigation, the court noted the surrounding context: the transfer effectively removed the petitioner from the college while allowing a junior person to continue as principal, despite prior court orders prohibiting junior appointments over senior professors.The court noted that old complaints and unproven allegations of financial irregularities raised by the State were not cited as the ground for transfer in the impugned order. Since no departmental inquiry was pending, relying on such allegations after the fact could not justify the transfer.