Madras HC Quashes Rule Putting Paediatrician CMO Behind Parent-Specialty Doctors Despite 4 Years At His Station

The petitioner, a Paediatrics medical officer, was transferred and posted as a Casualty Medical Officer at Government Kanyakumari Medical College Hospital on 26 February 2022.

In the 2026 transfer counselling, he was ranked below Paediatrics officers with shorter service at their respective stations because he had served as a non-parental Casualty Medical Officer.

The Director of Medical Education’s circular dated 16 October 2026 provided that such officers’ station seniority would be calculated from the date of their order to the present post and that they would be placed after parental officers in their respective specialities.

In an earlier batch of petitions, the Court had disposed of the cases after the Government stated that non-parental Casualty Medical Officers’ station seniority could be protected from the date of their previous posting order, subject to no break in service, for the 2026 counselling.

The petitioner challenged the circular’s contrary provision.

Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits arbitrary and unreasonable State action.

Under the hierarchy of legal norms discussed in Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, (2006) 12 SCC 583, administrative instructions cannot prevail over higher-ranking norms; the Court applied that principle to the relationship between the Government’s letter and the Director’s circular.

Clause 10.5 of G.O.(2D) No. 131 dated 20 November 2007 makes station seniority the criterion for priority in intra-Directorate transfers, while G.O.(D) No. 1355 dated 30 December 2024 provides that station seniority is calculated from the date of transfer or promotion orders for transfer purposes.

The Government’s letter dated 21 September 2026 provided for protection of the relevant officers’ station seniority from the date of their previous posting order, subject to no break in service, for the 2026 counselling.

The petitioner’s return to Paediatrics followed the rationalisation and redesignation of Casualty Medical Officer posts under G.O.(Ms) No. 19 dated 24 January 2026; it was not a voluntary decision to leave Emergency Medicine.

The Court held that reducing his station seniority because he was classified as a non-parental officer would unfairly prejudice him for a change arising from those developments.

Further, the Government had represented in the earlier proceedings that station seniority would be protected for the 2026 counselling, and the Court had disposed of those petitions on that basis.

Because clause 6(iii) conflicted with that Government letter and the applicable Government Orders, the Director’s circular could not validly impose the contrary rule.

It directed the Department to conclude the counselling, if necessary by redrawing the proceedings as though the offending clause had not been included.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.