Violation of executive transfer guidelines does not confer a justiciable right for interference under Article 226.

The petitioner, a contractual Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) under the National Health Mission (NHM) at CHC Palsud, District Barwani, challenged her transfer order dated 22-07-2026

She contended that the order was passed during a "ban period," was issued by the Collector (whom she claimed lacked jurisdiction), and violated NHM circulars against transferring contractual employees

The petitioner also cited personal hardships, including the education of her two children and lack of family support

Respondent No. 5 opposed the petition, citing the "National Health Mission, Madhya Pradesh Contractual Human Resources Manual, 2025," which empowers the Collector to order transfers and provides an alternative remedy of appeal

1. Whether the Collector has the jurisdiction to pass transfer orders for contractual employees under the NHM Manual, 2025

2. Whether a transfer order can be quashed solely on the grounds of violation of executive transfer guidelines or personal hardship in the absence of malafides or statutory violations

3. Whether the petitioner’s failure to exhaust the alternative remedy of appeal under the Manual bars the writ petition

Clause 9.1 of the National Health Mission Manual, 2025, which authorizes the Collector (as ex-officio Chairman of the District Health Committee) to transfer district-level contractual employees

Clause 8.10 of the Manual, which prescribes a statutory 30-day window for filing an appeal against transfer orders

Principles established in Nepal Singh Dodia v. State of M.P. and Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, holding that transfer is an incident of service and guidelines are mere executive instructions without statutory force

The court found the petitioner’s jurisdictional challenge meritless, noting that Clause 9.1 of the 2025 Manual explicitly empowers the respondent-Collector to effect intra-district transfers for administrative exigency

The court observed that the petitioner bypassed the mandatory grievance redressal mechanism and appeal process provided under Clause 8.10

Applying the settled legal position, the court reasoned that transfer policies are not judicially enforceable rights; they serve as guiding principles for administration rather than statutory mandates

The court emphasized that interference in transfers should be restricted to cases of proven malafides or statutory violations, neither of which were substantiated here

The court noted that administrative exigencies in healthcare require the government to have the flexibility to deploy staff to effectively provide medical facilities to every citizen

The court held that personal inconveniences and breaches of policy guidelines do not constitute a justiciable right unless the action is capricious or malicious

Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed