Administrative attachment of a government doctor contrary to a binding circular is liable to be quashed.

The petitioner, a regularly recruited Medical Officer, was substantively posted at the Community Health Centre, Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham.

The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Kabirdham, issued an order dated 19/20 August 2026 attaching her services to the 220-bedded District Hospital attached to the Medical College.

The petitioner challenged the attachment order, contending that it violated the State Government circular dated 4 June 2001, which prohibited attachment of government employees, including doctors.

The State acknowledged that the Chief Medical and Health Officer might not have been fully competent to issue the order under the circular, but justified the attachment on the basis of administrative exigency and the petitioner’s E-MOAC training and expertise.

Whether the order dated 19/20 August 2026 attaching the petitioner’s services to the District Hospital was contrary to the State Government circular dated 4 June 2001 and therefore liable to be quashed.

Whether the State remained competent to pass a fresh order transferring the petitioner in accordance with law on the ground of genuine administrative exigency.

The Court applied the binding State Government circular dated 4 June 2001, which prohibited the attachment of services of government employees, particularly doctors.

An administrative order passed by an authority in direct violation of such a binding governmental direction is unlawful and liable to be quashed.

The Court further recognised that the competent State authority could independently consider and order a lawful transfer based on genuine administrative exigency.

The petitioner’s substantive place of posting was the Community Health Centre, Sahaspur Lohara, and the impugned order merely attached her services to another institution rather than transferring her through a lawful order.

Since the attachment was issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer and directly contravened the prohibition contained in the 4 June 2001 circular, the stated administrative exigency and the petitioner’s specialised training could not validate the impugned order.

However, the Court distinguished an unlawful attachment from a lawful transfer and preserved the State’s power to issue an appropriate transfer order through the competent authority, subject to compliance with law.

The State was not precluded from passing a fresh, lawful transfer order based on genuine administrative exigency.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed to that extent, with no further relief specifically recorded.