dr sheikh firdous vs HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT on 30 October 2026

O R D E R

M.S.LATIF, M (J) oral "HEALTH IS THE GREATEST WEALTH" 01/ Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, sought the following reliefs : “The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to issue an appropriate, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order bearing No.

TARIQ A MOTA

EST-3/1- 133/2832-40 dated 24.10.2026, issued by the Director, Health Services, Kashmir, to the extent it directs the deployment of the applicant to Community Health Centre, Dawar, Gurez, with immediate effect, as an interim arrangement on a temporary basis, being alleged to be arbitrary, discriminatory and without lawful authority. Further relief is sought to direct to disclose and establish the legal competence under which the impugned order has been issued and to explain the administrative reasons for departing from the rotational roster and selecting the applicant for the impugned deployment and direct the respondents to consider the applicant's case in accordance with the applicable service rules, the relevant rotational rosters and the principle of equal treatment, and to refrain from subjecting the applicant to a separate or continuing deployment with further direction to the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's pending representation, after taking into account the applicant's prior roster-based assignments, the requirements of patient care, the circumstances of other similarly situated Medical Officers and the family circumstances of the petitioner. Along side the main reliefs, the petitioner has also sought a direction, as an interim measure that pending final disposal of the present Original Application, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of Order No. EST3/1-133/2832-40 dated 24.10.2026, insofar as it relates to the applicant, and direct the respondents to maintain the position obtaining immediately prior to the impugned order.” 02/ What can be gathered from a cursory look into the pleadings made in this petition is that the petitioner has challenged the order No. EST-3/1-133/2832-40 dated 24.10.2026, issued by the Director, Health Services, Kashmir, whereby the petitioner, presently serving as a Medical Officer at District Hospital, Bandipora, has been deployed to Community Health Centre, Dawar, Gurez, with immediate effect, as an interim arrangement on a temporary basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on previous occasions, the petitioner has performed his duties at Gurez pursuant to rotational rosters issued by the respondents, including the assignments notified in 2025 and 2026. However, under the rotational roster dated 30.09.2026, he was not included amongst the Medical Officers assigned duties at Gurez, but he

TARIQ A MOTA

was subsequently singled out for a separate deployment in terms of the impugned order without any disclosed administrative justification. 03/ Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has never refused to serve at remote or difficult stations and has duly complied with all previous assignments. His grievance is that the impugned deployment departs from the established rotational arrangement, imposes undue personal and family hardship, and appears discriminatory when compared with the treatment accorded to similarly situated Medical Officers. He submits that, to alleviate the anxiety, the petitioner filed a detailed representation before the authority concerned, seeking reconsideration of the impugned order, however, same has not been considered and no effective relief has been granted. As such, the petitioner seeks appropriate judicial intervention for setting aside the impugned order. 04/ The order of transfer is assailed, inter alia, on ground of lack of competence, arbitrariness, discrimination and departure from the established rotational duty arrangement. It is further submitted that the order, besides being arbitrary and discriminatory, appears to have been issued as a measure of punishment under the guise of a temporary deployment, without any lawful justification. The respondent Director, Health Services, Kashmir, has been issuing rotational duty rosters from time to time for deployment of Medical Officers to different health

TARIQ A MOTA

institutions, including those situated in the Gurez area, in the interest of patient care and public health services and in this regard a roster was issued in the year 2025, whereby the petitioner was assigned duties at Sub-District Hospital (SDH), Gurez, District Bandipora, for the period commencing from 21.08.2025 to 09.09.2025 and he petitioner duly complied with the roster and discharged his official duties at SDH Gurez, for the stipulated period, as such, the petitioner having completed the assignment entrusted to him under the roster, cannot lawfully be singled out for any further deployment in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or punitive in nature. The earlier roster based assignment stood implemented and was never disputed at the relevant time. Learned counsel submits that, subsequently, another rotational duty roster was notified on 25.06.2026, whereby the applicant was again assigned duties for the period commencing from 16.07.2026 to 31.07.2026, which assignment order was also complied with by the petitioner. 05/ It is further submitted that the petitioner also performed his duties at Gurez pursuant to another roster and the aforesaid facts demonstrate that he has, on previous occasions, duly discharged his duties at Gurez. He submits that the impugned order dated 24.10.2026, however, directs a separate deployment to Community Health Centre, Dawar, Gurez, with immediate effect, as an interim arrangement on a

TARIQ A MOTA

temporary basis. The circumstances in which the petitioner has been selected for the said deployment, despite his prior compliance with the rotational assignments, gives rise to a legitimate grievance regarding the fairness, non-discriminatory application and legality of the impugned action. Learned counsel submits that the order impugned, as it relates to the petitioner, is in violation of constitutional guarantees enshrined under articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and the order, being void ab initio, is non est in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside and quashed. 06/ Mr. Musaib - DAG, appearing for the respondents, while rebutting the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted, at the very outset, that the action taken by the respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order has been approved and confirmed by the competent authority, i.e. Government of J&K. He further submits that recently, in Gurez block, a woman, in a family way, died enroute to Bandipora hospital. To this effect a News Paper clipping, published in daily Greater Kashmir on 14-10-2026, with the caption 'A pregnant woman dies enroute to Bandipora hospital baby still born amid referral delay'. As such, he submits that the remote area of Gurez cannot be left without any specialist in Gynecology and that the impugned order has been passed in the interest of patient care.

TARIQ A MOTA

07/ Right to health and medical treatment is a facet of right to life and the same is to be provided by the State and associated medical institutions by keeping the adequate medical care available. In our country, the societal needs of health care are immense, requiring the Government to play a major role in providing health care facilities to its citizens for variety of reasons, be it poverty, lack of health care facilities in rural/tribal areas etc. Thus the issue, with regard to health care, being paramount and which touches the very existence of the human kind, deserves all attention. In this regard, I am fortified by the judgements delivered by the apex court in cases titled as Permanand Katara versus Union of India, 1989 vol. 4, SCC 286, Consumer Education Centre versus Union of India, 1995 vol.3, SC 42 and Paschim Bengal Khet Mazdoor Samiti versus State of West Bengal, 1996 vol. 4 SCC, 37, wherein Their Lordships have held that article 21 of the Constitution of India imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every person. Their Lordships held further that the Government hospitals, run by the State and the Medical Officers employed there, are duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life and any violation on the part of the Government hospitals, to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need, results in violation of right to life guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution of India. In a case titled as State of Punjab versus Mohinder Singh Chawla, 1997, vol. 2, SCC, 83, the apex court

TARIQ A MOTA

reiterated that Government has a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities to its citizens as right to health is integral to right to life. 08/ As is manifest from the mandate of judgements supra, health is held as an important facet of right to life, as such, it is an obligation of the State to ensure good health to its citizens and this assertion is reiterated in case titled as Indian Council of Legal Aid versus Union of India, 2000, vol.1 SCC 542. As such a duty is cast on the State to preserve life and failure on its part, to provide timely treatment to a person in need, would certainly result in violation of right to life. The hospitals, Health Centres, Dispensaries etc., can only run when the State provides a proper infrastructure, equipped with trained staff, maintenance of hygiene and supply of adequate medicine and more particularly, availability of specialist doctors. 09/ It goes without saying that transfer or deployment is an exigency of service and is always a administration decision, falling within the domain of competent authority, besides, transfer or deployment is a part of service condition of an employee, accepted at the time of appointment and, as such, court should not, ordinarily, interfere in such matters in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, unless it finds that the order is passed either on mala fide grounds or has been issued by an incompetent authority or is passed in contravention of the Service Rules. To this effect, court is fortified by the following judgements :

TARIQ A MOTA

1/ Hon’ble Supreme court in Ms. Sarita Singh versus M/S Shree Infosoft Private Limited 2022 Live Law (SC) Page 67 ;. 2/ Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. K. Nausad Rahman & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266 ; 3/ Hon’ble Apex Court titled as Sarita Singh versus Shree Infosoft Private Limited arising out of Civil Appeal no. 346 of 2022 ; 4/ State of Punjab versus Inder Singh reported in 1997 Volume 8 SCC 372 ;, 5/ Hon’ble Apex Court titled as State of Haryana and ors. versus Kashmir Singh, 2010 Volume 13 SCC 306. 10/ Be that as it may, it is always left to the domain of competent authority as to who should be transferred and where. From the pleadings made in this petition, it is nowhere averred that the order impugned is activated with malice, hatred or issued on mala fide considerations. Needless to say that the Government is to decide as to how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees. However, the power of transfer, devolved in the competent authority, must be exercised honestly, bona fide and reasonably, in the interest of public service, and the same shall not be issued in a colorable exercise of power and while exercising such power, the authority is not to act upon extraneous considerations and for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive 11/ Admittedly, in the light of law laid down by the apex court in the case titled as S.K.Naushad Rehman versus Union of India and

TARIQ A MOTA

others, 2022, Live Law, wherein the apex court ruled that while an employee cannot claim a transfer as a fundamental right but at the same time, the transfer policies of the State must align with the constitutional values protecting family life and substantive gender equality. It is equally true that the administration must actively consider the physical vulnerability underlying the health conditions and family compulsions of an employee before enforcing bad station postings. 12/ Mr. Bhat Fayaz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that before approaching this court by way of instant O.A, the petitioner has already submitted a representation before the competent authority seeking reconsideration of his transfer on medical and humanitarian grounds, but same has not, as of now, been decided. 13/ Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law cited at the bar, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted in the matter. However, since the representation filed by the petitioner is stated to be pending, respondents are obliged to pass appropriate orders, for, filing of representation creates a legal right in favour of the petitioner for its disposal and non consideration of the representation by the concerned authorities can lead to undue hardships and may warrant judicial intervention. In this behalf, I am fortified by the judgements titled as Nagapa Saibanna versus State of Karnataka, 2026 Legal

TARIQ A MOTA

Eagle, KAK, HC, 965, Eklavya Kumar versus State of U.P, 2018 Legal Eagle, ALD, HC 12425 DB, Dr. Suja Ani. G, versus State of Kerala, the Director of Medical Education and the Principal, 2010 Legal Eagle, Ker, HC 2562. As such, respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner within a period of seven days' positively to be reckoned from the date a copy of this judgement is served upon them and for seven days', the petitioner shall not be disturbed from his present place of posting, i.e. District Hospital, Bandipora, Kashmir. It is made clear here that it shall be incumbent upon the respondents to dispose of the representation within the aforesaid period by passing a speaking order. 14/ Before parting, I am reminded of saying of a Greek Scholar, - Francois Rabelias, and I quote, 'Without health, life is not life, it is only a state of languor and sufferings - AN IMAGE OF DEATH.' As such, by sensitizing the people who are at the helm of affairs not only at the level of the Government but also those who are involved in every bit of duty and responsibility towards the sick and needy, who are compelled to approach the Government hospitals and health centres for treatment of their sickness, I would like to say that there is no duty as solemn as treating the sick and it is on the shoulders of such persons that the health of the nation depends, as, for those, knocking the doors of health institutions for medical treatment, they are angles, as they share the

TARIQ A MOTA

agony of the sick and strive for their recovery, good health and, ultimately good living. 15/ In the backdrop of what has been discussed hereinabove, this petition shall stand disposed of along with connected M.As, if any. Copy of this order shall be send to the Chief Secretary of the U.T of J&K and the Secretary, Health and Medical Education, U.T of J&K. (M. S. LATIF) Member (Judl.) TARIQ MOTA CONSULTANT (PS) 30-10-2026.

TARIQ A MOTA