Dr Jamsheed Ahmad Band 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 reliefs:

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

That the instant application be allowed and upon the grounds and averments stated herein above the impugned order No. CMO/Est/9216-21 dated 18-12- 2025 passed by the respondent No. 03 arbitrarily and without jurisdiction with a further direction not to disturb the present place of posting of the applicant, the same would be in consonance with law and justice. Any other order or direction be passed in favour of the applicants and against the respondents, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the given circumstances of the case, the same would be in the interests of justice, the applicants are duty bound shall ever pray.

2. Alongside the main reliefs, the applicant has also sought for interim relief: That upon the grounds and averments stated herein above the impugned order No. CMO/Est/9216-21 dated 18-12-2025 passed by the respondent No. 03 arbitrarily and without jurisdiction be stayed, which has been passed arbitrarily and with malafide intentions, the same would be in consonance with law and justice. Any other order or direction be passed in favour of the applicants and against the respondents, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the given circumstances of the case, the same would be in consonance with law and justice.

3. The case as projected by the applicant in the O.A. is that the applicant is working as a Medical Officer in the respondent

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

department and is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Kupwara, by virtue of which the applicant, a Medical Officer (MD Gynaecology), is detailed to work at SDH Tanghdar and is deemed to have been relieved from SDH Kupwara w.e.f. 18.12.2025. The applicant has challenged the said order impugned on various grounds as have been mentioned in the O.A.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Shabir Ahmad Najar, submits that as per the duty roster, the applicant has already worked twice in Tanghdar as a Gynecologist, and as such, he cannot be again compelled back to serve at Tanghdar, as already the postings of the gynecologists and other specialists in Tanghdar are rotational. To this effect, learned counsel for the applicant has referred to a certificate issued by the Block Medical Officer dated 24.09.2025 as well as another communication dated 22.10.2025.

5. Admittedly, patient care is not to suffer at any cost. People are required to be provided medical care in far-flung areas which is otherwise a fundamental right of other citizens and depriving the patients of medical care in far-flung areas due to non- availability of doctors would be violative of right to life of the citizens, as such, the doctors have to be posted at far-flung areas

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

so that the patients are facilitated, particularly when such areas remain cut from the rest of the areas for couple of months. It is also apt to mention here that once a doctor has accepted to serve the humanity and the citizens, he has no right to claim the posting of his choice. But at the same time, the employer is also under a legal obligation to see that an employee, including a doctor, is not put to hardships particularly when he has already worked in the hard zones like Tanghdar, as stated by the applicant in the O.A.

6. Mr. Syed Musaib, learned DAG appearing for the respondents however submits that there are at least 250 expecting mothers in the area of Tanghdar who require medical care, and in absence of a specialized gynecologist in the area of Tanghdar, the patients will face difficulties.

7. Law is no more res integra that Courts have a very limited power to interfere in transfer matters. It is always left to the domain of the competent authority to suitably post its employees in the public and administrative interest. 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

8. Be that as it may.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the O.A.

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

11. The O.A. is disposed of by providing that the respondents

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

shall treat this O.A. as representation who will consider and dispose of the same within a period of seven days positively by passing a speaking order. However, while considering the O.A. as representation, the respondents shall take note of the rotational policy as adopted by them and if the applicant has already worked at Tanghdar in tune with the rotational policy, they shall consider the case of the applicant on its merits. Further, for seven days, the present position of the applicant shall not be disturbed, if he is not already relieved.

12. Accordingly, O.A./1482/2025 is disposed of along with all connected M.A.s, if any.

13. No order as to costs.

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

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA