Bhopal, May 14 In the corridors of state governance, the winds of change blow steadily, reshaping ministerial responsibilities across a few districts of Madhya Pradesh.
The political stage, already ablaze with a controversy, finds itself further unsettled following “offensive remarks” made by Tribal Affairs Minister Vijay Shah against distinguished military officer Colonel Sofiya Qureshi.
In response to the ensuing upheaval, the General Administration Department issued an official directive on Wednesday, effecting a strategic reassignment of district leadership.
Once entrusted to the stewardship of Higher Education, Technical Education, and Skill Development Minister Inder Singh Parmar, the administration of Barwani district now falls under the charge of Gautam Tetwal.
Tetwal, presently serving as Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Skill Development and Employment, shall continue to preside over Ujjain, a district of profound significance as the home turf of Chief Minister Mohan Yadav.
Thus, Tetwal’s responsibilities expand, spanning two critical regions.
Meanwhile, Parmar, relieved of his obligations in Barwani, assumes new duties over the Damoh district while maintaining oversight of Panna.
The ministerial reshuffling follows the political downfall of Ramniwas Rawat, who, having suffered defeat in the assembly elections, ceded his jurisdiction over both Mandla and Damoh districts.
With his resignation formally accepted on December 5, his vacated posts had lingered in administrative limbo for six months. The void is now filled, with Dilip Jaiswal entrusted with the charge of Mandla.
The reshaping of district command prompts speculation over the broader political ramifications, particularly with regard to Parmar’s reassignment.
As the shifting sands of governance settle, new alignments take shape, casting the future of regional administration in a new light. Meanwhile, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took cognisance of remarks made by the minister and asked the state to file an FIR (First Information Report) against him at the earliest, failing to which will be considered a contempt of the court.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor