Parvaiz Ahmad Bhat vs HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT on 31 December 2025

ORDER

(Oral)

Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.):- Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicant has sought for the following

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

reliefs:

a. Quash and set aside the impugned transfer/relieving order dated 18.12.2025, issued by respondent No. 4, being illegal, arbitrary and mala fide;

b. Direct the respondents to allow the applicant to continue his duties at Block Langate, in terms of order dated 26.11.2025;

c. Pass any other order(s) which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate in the interest of justice.

2. Alongside the main reliefs, the applicant has also sought for interim relief: Pending final decision on the original application (OA), the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to stay the impugned transfer/relieving order dated 18.12.2025, issued by respondent No. 4 and allow the applicant to continue his duties at Block Langate, in terms of order dated 26.11.2025. The same shall meet the ends of justice. Any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the attending circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the applicant and against the non-applicants.

3. What emerges from the pleadings made in the O.A. is that the applicant is working as a Multi-Purpose Health Worker with the respondents. It is stated that vide order dated 09.07.2025, the applicant by the orders of Chief Medical Officer, Kupwara, was

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

relieved and was directed to report to Block Medical Officer, Trehgam, District Kupwara, for further duties. The applicant, in pursuance to the order dated 09.07.2025, joined at his new place of posting i.e. Sub Centre Jumgund, Block Trehgam. However, the applicant thereafter moved a representation and his case was considered, and vide order dated 26.11.2025, the applicant was again posted back to Block Langate against an available vacancy with immediate effect. The order was issued in the interest of administration and patient care.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, submits that the applicant is aggrieved of an order dated 18.12.2025, by virtue of which he has been again transferred to S/C Jamagund, Block Trehgam, District Kupwara. He submits that the impugned order is bad in law for being frequent, as within a period of few months, the applicant was transferred twice. He submits that the unscheduled and frequent transfer is unwarranted, coupled with the fact that the order impugned has neither been passed in the interest of administration nor for patient care, particularly when the earlier order passed by the Chief Medical Officer, by virtue of which the applicant was

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

transferred back to Langate, was in the interest of patient care and administration.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it is not spelled out as to what interest of administration or patient care is to be achieved by transferring the applicant. He submits that admittedly, the applicant has no right to be posted at a place of his choice but it is not understandable as to what public interest or patient care interest is to be achieved by transferring the applicant.

6. Admittedly, transfer is an exigency of service. An employee has no right to be posted at a place of his choice. It is always left to the domain of the competent authority to post an employee in the public and administrative interest or wherever his services are required. Needless to say that once an employee accepts public employment, he cannot have posting of his choice. However, at times, employees also experience hardships for their family reasons or any other reason for which the employee has a right to move a detailed representation before the competent authority for seeking its consideration.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the mother

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

of the applicant is 60% visually impaired. To this effect, he has also submitted a medical certificate dated 16.10.2026 issued by the Office of Chairman District Medical Board Kupwara. However, it is not understandable as to how a certificate bears a date which is yet to come, as the certificate reflects the date as 16.10.2026.

8. Prima facie, it appears that all the members of the committee have signed the certificate without due application of mind. However, at the same time, this can even be a typographical error. But while issuing certificates, the Chairman, District Medical Board, Kupwara, is supposed to apply due application of mind, as mentioning a date which is yet to come may give rise to various suspicious circumstances and may even cast doubt as regards the veracity of the certificate.

9. Ordinarily, such an insertion would require a thorough enquiry into the matter which this Court would like to leave to the wisdom of the CMO to enquire into.

10. Admittedly, Courts have a very limited power to interfere in matters related to transfer and law is beaten to the subject. To this effect, I am fortified by a catena of judgments:

1. E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3;

2. B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (1986) 4 SCC 131;

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

3. Union of India and others vs. H.N. Kirtania, (1989) 3 SCC 445;

4. Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others vs. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659;

5. Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357;

6. Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle and another vs. Rajendra CH. Bhattacharjee and others, (1995) 2 SCC 532;

7. State of M.P. and another vs. S.S. Kourav and others, (1995) 3 SCC 270;

8. Union of India and others vs. Ganesh Dass Singh, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 214;

9. Abani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa and others, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 169;

10. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan and Shiv Prakash, (2001) 8 SCC 574;

11. Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104;

12. Union of India and others vs. Janardhan Debanath and another, (2004) 4 SCC 245;

13. State of U.P. vs. Siya Ram, (2004) 7 SCC 405;

14. State of U.P. and others vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402;

15. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and others, (2004) 12 SCC 299;

16. Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and others, (2009) 2 SCC 592;

17. Union of India and others vs. Muralidhara Menon and another, (2009) 9 SCC 304;

18. Rajendra Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2009) 15 SCC 178 &

19. State of Haryana and others vs. Kashmir Singh and another, (2010) 13 SCC 306 &

20. Anita Sharma vs. State of J&K 2019 Legal Eagle 489

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the O.A. along with all the annexures on file.

12. At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the O.A. is taken up for its disposal.

13. The instant O.A. is disposed of by providing that the competent authority shall treat this O.A. as representation who

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

shall consider and decide the same on its merits within a period of seven days positively from the date a copy of this order is served upon them. Further, for seven days, the applicant’s present place of posting shall not be disturbed. However, it is made clear that the direction/stay shall only be valid for the aforesaid period of seven days, during which period, the respondents shall dispose of the representation on its merits and in accordance with law.

14. Mr. Syed Musaib, learned DAG is directed to inform the Chief Medical Officer, Kupwara, about the order passed and the observations made in Para 9 above, who shall conduct an enquiry into the matter, and after conducting the same, the conclusion of the enquiry be placed before the registry of this Court.

15. Accordingly, O.A./1483/2025 is disposed of along with all connected M.A.s, if any.

16. No order as to costs.

(M.S. Latif) Member (Judl.) Abhishek Punia Court Master 31.12.2025

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA