Transfer Orders Must Reflect Objective Consideration of Medical Hardship and Exceptional Personal Circumstances

The applicant, a teacher in the School Education Department, was deployed to Zone Sumbal due to serious spinal and orthopedic ailments

On 19.02.2026, her deployment was cancelled, leading her to file an earlier petition (O.A. 279/2026), which resulted in a direction for the respondents to treat her plea as a representation

Despite medical records and spouse-posting documents being forwarded by administrative officers for sympathetic consideration, the respondents rejected her claim via Order No. 1748-DSEK of 2026 dated 29.04.2026 and issued a relieving order on 09.05.2026

The applicant challenged this rejection, asserting that her medical condition had not been objectively assessed by a Medical Board as previously suggested

1. Whether the administrative decision to cancel the applicant's deployment and reject her representation was conducted in a fair and reasonable manner considering her medical hardships

2. Whether the impugned rejection order complied with the principles of natural justice and the specific guidelines regarding "exceptional circumstances" under Government Order No. 20-Edu of 2019

The Tribunal recognized the settled principle that transfer is an incident of service and not a matter of right.

Administrative discretion must be exercised in a "fair, reasonable and humane manner," especially involving serious medical hardships or spouse postings.

Government Order No. 20-Edu of 2019 and Government Order No. 469-Edu of 2014 allow for transfer considerations in exceptional circumstances.

The court noted the precedent in Jyoti Gupta v. State of J&K & Ors. (O.A. 161/2023), which challenged arbitrary classifications in transfer policies.

The Tribunal found that while the employer holds administrative domain over transfers, it failed to objectively assess the applicant's medical evidence or the spouse-posting aspect.

The court observed that the impugned order dated 29.04.2026 lacked "adequate consideration" of the material facts and did not indicate whether an objective assessment by a competent Medical Board was ever conducted.

The Tribunal reasoned that because the medical condition (spinal problems) had been reaffirmed in subsequent examinations and the authorities themselves had initially processed her redeployment, the abrupt rejection without a reasoned, speaking order was flawed.

The respondents were directed to treat the Original Application as a comprehensive representation and to pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order within two weeks, with the relieving order remaining inoperative until this fresh decision is taken.