University must sympathetically reconsider an employee’s deputation and transfer request considering terminal illness.

The petitioner, an Associate Professor of Hindi at M.D. College, Naubatpur, asserted that he was suffering from chronic kidney disease, Stage 5, and was undergoing treatment at CMC, Vellore and AIIMS, Patna.

He submitted a representation to the Vice-Chancellor of Patliputra University on 17 March 2026 seeking transfer to a college nearer Patna, including B.S. College, Danapur, on medical grounds.

While the representation remained pending, the Vice-Chancellor issued Memo No. R/PPU/1117/26 dated 20 June 2026 deputing him to Rajkiya Degree College, Ghoswari, Patna, without obtaining his prior consent.

The petitioner challenged the deputation and submitted further representations, which remained undecided.

The University sought a short adjournment to place the current position before the Court.

Whether, in view of the petitioner’s serious Stage 5 kidney ailment and fragile health, his request for transfer or change of posting ought to be considered sympathetically by the University.

Whether the deputation order dated 20 June 2026 should remain operative when it was issued without obtaining the petitioner’s prior consent and while his medical representation was pending.

The Court applied the principle that administrative authorities must consider an employee’s genuine and serious medical condition fairly and sympathetically while deciding a request for transfer or change of posting.

It also treated the absence of prior consent before deputing the petitioner, together with the pendency of his medical representation, as relevant circumstances warranting interim protection.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order; the decision was based on equitable and compassionate administrative consideration of the petitioner’s terminal illness and fragile health.

The Court gave substantial weight to the petitioner’s undisputed assertion of Stage 5 chronic kidney disease, described as terminal and requiring urgent treatment.

It found that the petitioner’s medical representation had not been considered before he was deputed to another institution, and that his prior consent had not been obtained for the deputation.

In these circumstances, rather than finally determining the legality of the deputation or directing a particular transfer, the Court required the Vice-Chancellor to reconsider the petitioner’s case sympathetically, taking his medical condition into account.

The Court also preserved the status quo by staying the deputation order pending such reconsideration.

Pending that decision, the deputation order dated 20 June 2026 was stayed insofar as it related to the petitioner.