Administrative redeployment without altering service conditions is not amenable to judicial review under Article 226.

The appellants, Dr. S. Venkiteshwaran and Dr. G. Kolappan, were appointed as Assistant Surgeons in the Health Department and were serving under the Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services.

On administrative and public-service grounds, the Directorate issued a circular dated 06 May 2022 releasing certain doctors, including the appellants, to the Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine for the issuance of posting orders, with the stated objective of improving medical facilities in rural areas.

The appellants challenged the circular before the Single Judge, contending that they had been serving for several years under the Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services and would be dislocated if the circular were implemented.

The writ petitions were dismissed by order dated 12 January 2024 in W.P. Nos. 12738 and 12745 of 2022, leading to the present writ appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

Whether the circular dated 06 May 2022, issued to release doctors from the Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services to the Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine on administrative grounds, was liable to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Whether the proposed transfer or reallocation of the appellants affected their service conditions, seniority, or caused legally cognisable prejudice warranting judicial relief?

Whether the appellants were entitled to further relief in view of their having continued in their existing postings pursuant to an interim order for a considerable period?

The Court applied the principle that a government department’s administrative or policy decision concerning deployment and posting of personnel is ordinarily not amenable to judicial review under Article 226 where it is taken in public interest, is not mala fide or arbitrary, and does not alter or impair the employee’s conditions of service.

The Court further applied the principle that a transfer or administrative reallocation which does not affect an employee’s service conditions or seniority does not, by itself, furnish a ground for writ interference.

The appeals were filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

The Court treated the circular as a departmental policy decision issued to meet administrative exigencies and to provide effective medical services to persons residing in rural areas.

Since the proposed movement of doctors was within the Health Department and did not diminish the appellants’ service conditions or seniority, the Court found no legal prejudice warranting intervention under Article 226.

The appellants’ objection was essentially based on their long tenure under the Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services and the possibility of dislocation, which the Court held insufficient to invalidate an otherwise administrative deployment decision.

The Court also declined to grant further relief because the appellants had already continued in their existing positions for approximately four years pursuant to an interim order.

The writ appeals were accordingly dismissed, the order dated 12 January 2024 of the Single Judge was left undisturbed, no order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.