Court cannot mandate transfers or entertain writ petitions based solely on pending representations without legal infringements.

The petitioner, a General Nursing and Midwifery (G.N.M.) professional posted at Community Health Centre (C.H.C.), Sursand, alleged continuous mental and physical harassment by the In-charge Medical Officer (Respondent No. 7)

She claimed her salary was deducted, increments stopped, and a false criminal case was lodged against her and her husband after she raised grievances

Following a three-year deputation at a dispensary in 2022, she was returned to C.H.C. Sursand in February 2025, where harassment allegedly resumed, including a transfer to a facility without a sanctioned G.N.M. post

The petitioner filed several representations to the Civil Surgeon and the Additional Secretary, Health Department, but received no response

Consequently, she moved the High Court seeking disciplinary action against Respondent No. 7 or a transfer to a different jurisdiction

1. Whether the Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct the transfer of an employee or disciplinary action based on representations alleging harassment

2. Whether the mere filing of representations entitles a petitioner to seek judicial intervention under Article 226

The court applied the principle that the transfer of an employee is a prerogative of the employer, and decisions regarding such administrative matters must be taken at the departmental level rather than by the Court in a routine manner

The court relied on settled jurisprudence from the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which establishes that the mere filing of a representation does not create a vested right for a person to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

The Court observed that while the petitioner alleged significant harassment and arbitrary actions (such as salary deduction and false litigation), she failed to bring "even a single chit of paper" or documentary evidence on record to substantiate these claims, such as appointment letters, transfer orders, or the First Information Report (FIR)

The Court reasoned that since the grievances remained at the level of unsupported representations, it could not intervene. It specifically noted that matters of transfer fall within the employer's administrative domain

Therefore, the petitioner had not established a legal or factual basis for the Court to issue a writ of mandamus for transfer or disciplinary action at this stage.

The Court held that the respondent authorities are "obliged to consider the representation" of the petitioner, provided the allegations against Respondent No. 7 are found to be true