### Pharmacists in unified cadres may be transferred between Sub-Centres and Primary Health Centres.

The appellant, a Pharmacist appointed in 2006, challenged a transfer order dated 10.06.2025, which moved him from the Family Welfare Sub-Centre, Pawalgarh (Nainital) to the Primary Health Centre, Dharchoola (Pithoragarh) in public interest

The appellant contended that under Clause-2 of the Government Order (G.O.) dated 01.08.2005 and his appointment letter, his cadre was restricted to sub-centres only

A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition (WPSS No. 1036 of 2025) on 07.07.2025, holding that the cadre of Pharmacists is a single cadre and the appellant had been at his current station since 2006

The appellant filed this intra-court appeal against that dismissal.

1. Whether a Pharmacist appointed under the Government Order dated 01.08.2005 can be legally transferred to a Primary Health Centre despite a restrictive clause in the original G.O.

The Court applied the service rules establishing that the cadre of Pharmacist is a single, unified cadre

It primarily relied on the precedent set in *WPSS No. 884 of 2009* and *WPSS No. 1849 of 2018 (dated 17.06.2016)*, which struck down Clause-2 of the G.O. dated 01.08.2005 as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India

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 orders attempting to stay this provision had been quashed

The Court reasoned that the appellant's reliance on the restrictive Clause-2 of the 2005 G.O. was legally untenable because that specific clause had already been quashed by the Court in prior litigation for being unconstitutional

The Division Bench observed that the G.O. dated 04.03.2011 currently "holds the field," effectively merging the transferability of Pharmacists across Sub-Centres and Primary Health Centres

The Court further noted that the appellant had remained at the same place of posting for nearly two decades (since 2006) and the new place of posting was an accessible area, thus finding no administrative or legal infirmity in the transfer order issued in public interest

The Special Appeal was dismissed, affirming the order of the learned Single Judge and upholding the transfer order

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly