Dr Pinkesh Dhariwal vs State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-3133-2026 (O&M) 1 of 12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
214 CWP-3133-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.11.2026
Dr. Pinkesh Dhariwal ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Vikram Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, Asst. A.G., Haryana .
*
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of an
appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the impugned transfer order dated 12.08.2025
(Annexure P-4), whereby the petitioner, Dr. Pinkesh Dhariwal, Eye
Specialist, has been transferred from Civil Hospital, Rewari to Civil
Hospital, Sirsa, the said order being manifestly arbitrary, illegal and
unsustainable in law, as it has been issued in direct contravention of the
HCMS Transfer Policy, 2008 dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P-5), which
mandates a minimum tenure of three years for Medical Specialists at a
station and permits deviation only upon recording exceptional
circumstances or overriding administrative exigency, none of which has
DIVYANSHI
been recorded or communicated in the present case; further ignoring the
2026.11.05 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-3133-2026 (O&M) 2 of 12
binding Government instructions stipulated in the transfer policy dated
17.11.2008 (P-5) governing posting of husband and wife at the same or
nearby station, despite the petitioner being a duly acknowledged couple
case; and further being vitiated by total non-consideration of the
petitioner's uninterrupted, complaint-free and satisfactory service record
at Civil Hospital, Rewari since 10.07.2023 (Annexure P-1), thereby
rendering the impugned transfer order arbitrary, disproportionate,
violative of settled service jurisprudence and liable to be interfered with in
exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court; And to
issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to
accommodate or adjust the petitioner at Civil Hospital, Rewari or at any
nearby station within District Rewari, Civil Hospital, Kosli, against available
or vacant posts, strictly in terms of the HCMS Transfer Policy, 2008 and the
advisory recommendations already placed on record, so as to ensure
adherence to the couple-case policy and prevent disproportionate and
avoidable hardship to the petitioner and his family.
2. It is inter alia submitted by ld. Counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner was initially posted at Civil Hospital Rewari vide order dated
10.07.2023 (Annexure P-1). Vide impugned order dated 12.08.2025
(Annexure P-4), petitioner has been arbitrarily transferred from Civil
Hospital, Rewari to Civil Hospital, Sirsa. Ld. Counsel submits that the said
transfer to Sirsa is in violation of the HCMS Transfer Policy dated
17.11.2008 (Annexure P-5); as per which, minimum tenure on the post at
one place shall be of 3 years. In passing the impugned order, respondents
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-3133-2026 (O&M) 3 of 12
have also failed to consider the fact that Sirsa is situated at a distance of
270 K.M. from Rewari. The petitioner has been recently blessed with a
daughter, who was born on 19.12.2024. Thus, transfer at this stage would
cause severe disruption to the petitioner’s family life and professional
stability.
3. It is reiterated by ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned transfer is patently illegal and unjustified as it ignores the HCMS
Transfer Policy, 2008, (Annexure P-5) which mandates a minimum tenure
of three (3) years for Medical Specialists at one station before being
considered for transfer, except on exceptional grounds recorded in writing.
The petitioner had joined Civil Hospital, Rewari on 10.07.2023 and had not
completed the prescribed minimum tenure at Civil Hospital, Rewari at the
time of issuance of the impugned order, and no exceptional public interest
or administrative exigency was ever recorded or communicated. Thus, the
premature transfer of the petitioner is in clear violation of the binding
transfer policy and is arbitrary on the face of the record.
4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite
there being no request for transfer from the petitioner and no
administrative complaint or shortage justification, the respondents
transferred the petitioner to Civil Hospital, Sirsa, where two eye specialists
were already posted, thereby negating any claim of exigency. In
compliance with the transfer order, the petitioner joined Civil Hospital,
Sirsa on 27.08.2025, after availing the permissible joining time. Thereafter,
the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 28.08.2025 to
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-3133-2026 (O&M) 4 of 12
the higher authorities seeking deputation back to Narnaul or withdrawal
of the transfer, highlighting extreme family hardship. However, no decision
has been taken till date, compelling the petitioner to seek judicial
intervention.
5. It is accordingly prayed that present Writ Petition be allowed;
and following prayers be accepted: -
“i. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
impugned transfer order dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure P-4),
whereby the petitioner, Dr. Pinkesh Dhariwal, Eye Specialist,
has been transferred from Civil Hospital, Rewari to Civil
Hospital, Sirsa, the said order being manifestly arbitrary,
illegal and unsustainable in law, as it has been issued in direct
contravention of the HCMS Transfer Policy, 2008 dated
17.11.2008 (Annexure P-5), which mandates a minimum
tenure of three years for Medical Specialists at a station and
permits deviation only upon recording exceptional
circumstances or overriding administrative exigency, none of
which has been recorded or communicated in the present
case; further ignoring the binding Government instructions
stipulated in the transfer policy dated 17.11.2008 (P-5)
governing posting of husband and wife at the same or nearby
station, despite the petitioner being a duly acknowledged
couple case; and further being vitiated by total non-
consideration of the petitioner's uninterrupted, complaint-
free and satisfactory service record at Civil Hospital, Rewari
since 10.07.2023 (Annexure P-1), thereby rendering the
impugned transfer order arbitrary, disproportionate, violative
of settled service jurisprudence and liable to be interfered
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-3133-2026 (O&M) 5 of 12
with in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble Court;
ii. Further to issue appropriate directions to the respondents
to accommodate or adjust the petitioner at Civil Hospital,
Rewari or at any nearby station within District Rewari, Civil
Hospital, Kosli, against available or vacant posts, strictly in
terms of the HCMS Transfer Policy, 2008 and the advisory
recommendations already placed on record, so as to ensure
adherence to the couple-case policy and prevent
disproportionate and avoidable hardship to the petitioner
and his family.”
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed submissions
of the petitioner and has submitted that transfer is an exigency of service
and cannot be interfered with by this Court. Moreover, petitioner has
been transferred due to administrative efficiency as there was a vacant
post at the District Civil Hospital, Sirsa. Furthermore, petitioner has been
posted at Rewari since his joining service as Medical Officer on
08.09.2014. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ
Petition.
7. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned
counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case
file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioner.
8. A perusal of the written statement dated 06.03.2026 filed on
behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 shows that respondents have
categorically stated in para 2 of the preliminary submissions thereof as
follows: -
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-3133-2026 (O&M) 6 of 12
“2. That it is respectfully submitted that the transfer order
dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure P-4) has been issued by the
competent authority in normal course of administration and
to fill a vacant post of Ophthalmologist in District Civil
Hospital (DCH), Sirsa in larger public interest. The transfer is
an essential exigency in government service and no employee
can claim a right to stay at one place permanently. The
petitioner has been working in District, Rewari since his
joining in the service as Medical Officer on 08.09.2014. A
chart showing his posting is as under:-
Sr.
No.
Name of Posting
Station
Period Remarks
1. DCH Rewari 08.09.2014 to
10.06.2017
After initial
joining in
service
2. PHC, Bharawas,
District Rewari
11.06.2017 to
30.01.2020
This posting
was given
considering
his request
of rural area
posting.
3. PG period 31.01.2020 to
30.01.2023
Relieved
from PHC,
Bharawas
for PG
course from
PGIMER,
Chandigarh.
4. DCH, Rewari 02.02.2023 to
19.08.2025
After PG
course, he
posted in
DCH,
Rewari.
5. DCH, Sirsa 27.08.2025 to
till now
He joined at
Sirsa in
compliance
with the
transfer
order
12.08.2025
(P-4).
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-3133-2026 (O&M) 7 of 12
It is further submitted that 04 Ophthalmologists were
working at DCH, Rewari at that time as compared to only 02
Ophthalmologist (1 regular doctor and 1 post-retirement
consultant who is diploma holder) at DCH, Sirsa. Hence, the
petitioner has been transferred from DCH, Rewari to DCH,
Sirsa in the larger public interest.”
9. No replication has been filed by the petitioner controverting
the facts as stated above. Therefore, it is not disputed that petitioner has
been posted at Rewari since 2014 till date of passing of the impugned
transfer order on 12.8.2025. Further, cogent reasons have been given as
to why petitioner is required at DCH Sirsa. Therefore, transfer of the
petitioner is in larger public interest.
10. Further reliance of the petitioner on HCMS Transfer Policy
dated 17.11.2008 (P-5), is misplaced as the same are only Guidelines.
11. Lastly, it is established position in law that transfer is an
exigency of service and cannot be lightly interfered with. Reference is
made to a judgment of this Court in Dr. Kirandeep Kaur v. State of
Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2875022 decided on
23.03.2026; wherein it is held: -
“ Transfer is an incidence of service, and no employee has a
legally enforceable right to remain posted at a particular
place. Judicial interference in transfer matters is permissible
only when the transfer order is vitiated by mala fides, issued
by an incompetent authority, or violates statutory provisions.”

DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-3133-2026 (O&M) 8 of 12
The relevant paras of the said judgment read as under:-
“5. Law on the issue is well settled that transfer is an
incidence of service and no employee has a right to be
remained posted at a particular place of posting and the
transfer policy is mere guidelines and is not legally
enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A
Division Bench of this Court in  Union of India v. Ashok Kumar
and another : 2008 (1) SCT 704 , while considering the similar
issue has held as under :-
"7. xx xx xx xx xx Apart from the said fact, the question
which is required to be examined is whether such posting
and transfer policy confers any enforceable right in
favour of respondent No.1 so as to challenge his transfer
purportedly made on administrative ground before the
Tribunal. Guidelines have been framed by the authorities
to regulate their internal working and with a view to
deal with different situations evenly. Such guidelines are
not statutory in nature. Any departure from the said
guidelines by itself does not give right to an employee to
successfully challenge his transfer. The transfer can be
challenged on limited grounds i.e., when the same is not
within the cadre or the authority is not competent to
order transfer or it is in violation of the statutory rules or
actuated by mala fide. The transfer is normal incidence
of service and an employee has no right to resist his
transfer on the basis of alleged violation of the
guidelines. The issue is not res integra. In  Bank of India
v. Jagjit Singh Mehta, 1992(1) SCT 161 : AIR 1992 SC
519 , Hon'ble Supreme Court was seized of the guidelines
for posting husband and wife at one station even if their
employers be different. The Court found that the only
thing required in terms of the guidelines is that the
departmental authorities should consider this aspect
along with the exigencies of administration. Thus, no
right is conferred on an employee to remain at the same
place even if administrative exigency and transfer policy
do not permit it.
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-3133-2026 (O&M) 9 of 12
8. In  Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, 1995 (4) SCT 455 : AIR
1993 SC 2444 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held to the
following effect :-
"Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the
appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of
transfer of vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation
of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere
with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt the
authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the
Government on the subject. Similarly, if a person makes
any representation with respect to his transfer the
appropriate authority must consider the same having
regard to the exigencies of administration. The
guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife
must be posted at the same place. The said guidelines,
however, do not confer upon the Government employee
a legally enforceable right".
9. In  State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, 2004 (2) SCT 368 :
AIR 2004 SC 2165 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no
government servant can contend that once appointed or
posted in a particular place or position, he should
continue in such place or position as long as he desires.
Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent
in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an
essential condition of service in the absence of any
specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or
conditions of service. The administrative guidelines for
regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at
best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant
concerned to approach their higher authorities for
redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving of
denying the competent authority to transfer a particular
officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is
found necessitated by exigencies of service. The order of
transfer made even in transgression of administrative
guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not
confer any legally enforceable right unless shown to be
vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any
statutory provisions.
10. In  National Hydroelectric Power Corporation
Limited v. Shri Bhagwan, 2002 (1) SCT 236 : AIR 2001 SC
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-3133-2026 (O&M) 10 of 12
3309 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless an order
of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide
exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory
provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or
the Tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a
matter of routine, as though they were the appellate
authorities substituting their own decision for that of the
management, as against such orders passed in the
interest of administrative exigencies of the service
concerned.
11. In S.L. Abbas's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that the jurisdiction of the Central
Administrative Tribunal is akin to the jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
in service matters. The constraints and norms which the
High Court observes while exercising the said jurisdiction
apply equally to the Tribunal created under Article 323-A
of the Constitution. The Central Administrative Tribunal
is not an Appellate Authority sitting in judgment over the
orders of transfer. It cannot substitute its own judgment
for that of the authority competent to transfer.
12. A Full Bench of this Court in  Jagir Singh Kanungo v.
The State of Punjab through the Secretary Vigilance,
Punjab, Chandigarh, 1993 (2) SCT 128 : 1993 (1) Punjab
Law Reporter 376 , has the occasion to interpret the
guidelines issued by the State of Punjab for conclusion of
the inquiry proceedings in a time bound manner. It was
held that if the enquiry proceedings are not completed
within the aforesaid period, no right accrues to the
employee to approach the Court of law for enforcement
of those guidelines. It was held to the following effect :-
"If the State Government have issued certain guidelines
for the guidance of the various departments or the
disciplinary authorities to impress upon them the
necessity of finalising the departmental proceedings
expeditiously or even within a fixed period, it does not
mean that after the expiry of that period, a right in law
accrues to the employee to approach the Court of law
for the enforcement of those guide-lines... "
Keeping in view the aforesaid parameters and the scope
of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in an application under
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-3133-2026 (O&M) 11 of 12
section 19 of the Act, we are of the opinion that the
order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the order of
transfer is illegal exercise of the jurisdiction by the
Tribunal. The guidelines are not statutory and do not
confer any legally enforceable right on the basis of which
an employee can challenge his transfer. No doubt,
normally the guidelines are to be adhered to by the
administrative authorities but their non-adherence will
entitle an employee to bring such facts to the notice of
the superior authorities but does not confer any right to
seek quashing of the transfer either in an application
under section 19 of the Act or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Under section 19 of the Act or
under Article 226 of the Constitution, transfer order can
be interfered with if it is shown to be vitiated by mala
fide or in violation of the statutory provisions or having
been passed by an authority not competent to pass such
an order. Since none of the three conditions are satisfied
in the case set up by respondent No.1, the order passed
by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law.”
6. To the same effect is the Division Bench judgment of this
Court in  Mool Chand Tewatia v. Union of India and others :
2016 (2) SCT 427 , wherein it has been held that the transfer is
an incidence of service and the Courts are not to interfere
unless the Courts finds that the transfer is due to mala fide or
against the service rules.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in  Sri Pubi Lombi v. The State of
Arunachal Pradesh and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 279 , has
examined the scope of judicial review in the transfer matters
and has held that the same is not permissible in exercising the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the
said judgment, it has been held as under: -
"10. In view of the foregoing enunciation of law by
judicial decisions of this Court, it is clear that in
absence of (i) pleadings regarding malafide, (ii) non-
joining the person against whom allegation are made,
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-3133-2026 (O&M) 12 of 12
(iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the
allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the
employee who is holding a transferrable post, judicial
interference is not warranted. In the sequel of the said
settled norms, the scope of judicial review is not
permissible by the Courts in exercising of the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India."”
12. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to dispute the above
factual and legal position. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands
dismissed .
13. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
04.11.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document