Rewari Had 4 Ophthalmologists, Sirsa 2: P&H HC Upholds Eye Specialist’s Transfer To Fill Sirsa Vacancy

In brief

The question

1. Whether the transfer order was liable to be quashed for being contrary to the HCMS Transfer Policy, including its tenure and couple-case provisions.

The court held

The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the challenge to the transfer order.

It also directed

Any pending applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner, an Eye Specialist, was transferred by order dated 12.08.2025 from Civil Hospital, Rewari, to Civil Hospital, Sirsa.

p. 1

He challenged the transfer, contending that it was premature under the HCMS Transfer Policy dated 17.11.2008, which provided for a three-year tenure for Medical Specialists; that the policy’s couple-case provisions and his family circumstances, including his infant daughter, had not been considered; and that no exceptional administrative reason had been recorded.

pp. 1–4

He joined at Sirsa on 27.08.2025 and later submitted a representation seeking withdrawal of the transfer or adjustment nearer to Rewari.

p. 4

The State responded that the transfer was made in the public interest to fill a vacancy at Sirsa, where two Ophthalmologists were working compared with four at Rewari, and that the petitioner had served in Rewari district since joining service in 2014.

pp. 5–7

No replication was filed to controvert the State’s account.

p. 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the transfer order was liable to be quashed for being contrary to the HCMS Transfer Policy, including its tenure and couple-case provisions.

pp. 2–5, 7–8

ii.2. Whether the transfer could be interfered with under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution in light of the State’s stated administrative and public-interest grounds.

pp. 5–7, 8–12

03Law Applied

Transfer is ordinarily an incidence of service, and an employee has no enforceable right to remain posted at a particular place. Transfer-policy guidelines, unless statutory, do not by themselves confer a legally enforceable right; a transfer may be judicially reviewed where it is vitiated by mala fides, made by an incompetent authority, or contrary to statutory provisions.

pp. 8–12

The Court relied on Union of India v. Ashok Kumar, Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, and Sri Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh for these principles.

pp. 8–12

It also noted that the HCMS Transfer Policy dated 17.11.2008 was a set of guidelines rather than statutory rules.

p. 7

Provisions in the judgment · 1

the Act (alias, unresolved) Section 19

04Reasoning

The Court accepted the State’s unrebutted account that the petitioner had served in Rewari district since 2014 and that Rewari had four Ophthalmologists, while Sirsa had only two, making the transfer necessary to fill a vacancy and serve the public interest.

pp. 6–7

It held that the petitioner’s reliance on the transfer policy was misplaced because the policy contained non-statutory guidelines, and that departure from such guidelines did not, without more, establish a ground for judicial interference.

p. 7

Applying the settled limits on review of transfer decisions, the Court found no basis to interfere with the order.

pp. 7–12