Pharmacists at Sub-Centres belong to a unified cadre and can be transferred to Primary Health Centres.

The appellant, a Pharmacist appointed in 2006 at Family Welfare Sub-Centre, Mohan, Nainital, challenged a transfer order dated 10.06.2025.

The order transferred him to Primary Health Centre (PHC), Dar, Pithoragarh in public interest.

The appellant argued that under Clause-2 of the Government Order (G.O.) dated 01.08.2005 and his appointment letter, he could only be transferred between sub-centres and not to a PHC.

A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition (WPSS No. 1037) on 07.07.2025, holding that the pharmacist cadre is a single cadre and the transfer was to an accessible area.

The appellant subsequently filed this intra-court Special Appeal.

Whether a Pharmacist appointed under the G.O. dated 01.08.2005 can be legally transferred to a Primary Health Centre (PHC) despite the restrictive transfer clause originally contained in said G.O.

The Court applied the principle of administrative law regarding the supersession of executive instructions and the doctrine of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

It relied on the precedent set in WPSS No. 884 of 2009 and WPSS No. 1849 of 2014 (dated 17.06.2016), which quashed Clause-2 of the G.O. dated 01.08.2005 as arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

Furthermore, the court upheld the G.O. dated 04.03.2011, which expressly enables the transfer of Pharmacists from Sub-Centres to Primary Health Centres, and noted that subsequent stays on this G.O. had been quashed.

The Court reasoned that the appellant's reliance on the 2005 G.O. was misplaced because the specific clause restricting transfers to sub-centres had already been struck down by previous judicial pronouncements.

The Division Bench observed that the legal landscape is currently governed by the G.O. dated 04.03.2011, which permits transfers across different health facility tiers (from Sub-Centres to PHCs).

Since the pharmacist cadre is unified under the service rules and the restrictive clause in the appointment letter was based on a quashed G.O., the appellant had no vested right to resist the transfer to a PHC, especially after serving at the same station since 2006.

The Special Appeal was dismissed, affirming the order of the learned Single Judge and finding no scope for interference in the transfer order.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.