The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that arbitrary and frequent transfers of Patwari officers undermine the foundational requirement of local familiarity essential to revenue administration. In a significant ruling under Article 226, the Court stayed a transfer order issued within a year of three prior postings, recognizing that such instability directly impairs the functional efficacy of a Patwari.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Smt. Savita Saini, a Patwari serving in the revenue department of Madhya Pradesh, challenged her latest posting to Ganpatkhora, issued on 16 January 2026. She contended that this was her third transfer within a single year, each time relocating her to a new village with no reasonable administrative justification. As a Patwari, her duties require intimate knowledge of land boundaries, permanent survey marks, and local landholders - all of which demand sustained presence in a single jurisdiction.
Procedural History
- 2025: First transfer from original posting to Village A
- Late 2025: Second transfer to Village B
- 16 January 2026: Third transfer to Ganpatkhora, challenged via writ petition
- Petitioner filed a representation seeking reconsideration, which remained pending at the time of hearing
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a stay on the impugned posting order and directed the State to decide her representation within a stipulated time, arguing that the transfers were discriminatory, mala fide, and violated the principle of reasonable administrative action.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether frequent transfers of a Patwari, without objective justification, violate the principle of service stability and reasonable administrative practice under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner relied on the doctrine of reasonable classification under Article 14, arguing that the petitioner was being singled out for repeated transfers while others in similar positions were not. He cited State of U.P. v. Raj Narain to emphasize that administrative discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily. He further contended that the nature of a Patwari’s duties - requiring long-term familiarity with land records and local communities - makes frequent transfers inherently detrimental to public service delivery.
For the Respondent
The Government Advocate submitted that transfers are routine administrative functions and that no discrimination was proven. He argued that the petitioner had not demonstrated any malafide intent and that the State retained broad discretion in personnel deployment under service rules. He contended that the petitioner’s representation was pending and that judicial intervention was premature.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the functional nature of a Patwari’s role, noting that the position is not merely clerical but requires on-ground engagement with land records, boundary disputes, and community interaction. The Court observed that frequent relocation prevents the development of the necessary local expertise essential for accurate revenue administration.
"If a Patwari is shifted from one village to another every few months, he cannot possibly acquire the requisite familiarity with permanent marks, landholdings, or the people of the village. This defeats the very purpose of the post."
The Court rejected the State’s argument that transfers are purely administrative and immune from judicial scrutiny. It held that while the State has discretion, it cannot exercise it in a manner that renders the function of the post impossible. The Court distinguished this from routine transfers in other departments, emphasizing the unique field-based nature of a Patwari’s duties.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had filed a representation seeking redressal, which remained unaddressed. It held that the State’s failure to respond to such a representation, particularly in light of the demonstrable harm caused by repeated transfers, amounted to a failure of procedural fairness.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court stayed the impugned posting order dated 16 January 2026 and directed the State to decide the petitioner’s representation within 30 days of receiving a certified copy of the order, with a reasoned and speaking order. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Service Stability Is a Legally Recognized Right
- Practitioners representing government employees in field roles must now argue that frequent transfers impair functional efficacy and may constitute arbitrariness under Article 14
- This judgment establishes that administrative convenience cannot override the nature of the job
- Courts may intervene even without proof of malafide intent if the transfer pattern renders the post unworkable
Representation Must Be Decided Reasonably and Timely
- Government departments must now treat representations from employees on posting issues as legally significant, not procedural formalities
- Failure to decide representations within a reasonable time may invite judicial intervention
- A "speaking order" is now mandatory - vague or boilerplate rejections will not suffice
Patwari Posts Are Functionally Distinct
- This ruling creates a precedent for other field-based roles: Surveyors, Block Development Officers, Agricultural Extension Officers
- Any challenge to frequent transfers in such roles can now cite this judgment to argue that job-specific requirements override general transfer policies
- Legal teams should document cumulative transfer history and its impact on work output to strengthen future petitions
