Dismissed

Dr. Tukaram Kunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Mar 2025WPS/235/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Government medical officer challenged his transfer from In-charge CMHO, Narayanpur to Medicine Specialist, District Hospital Bijapur, alleging displacement to accommodate a junior officer and future service under a junior; his representation had been rejected. The court found limited judicial review scope, no malafide shown, non-joinder of the alleged junior officer, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr. Tukaram Kunwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHABEOHAR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 235 of 2025

¶6

1 - Dr. Tukaram Kunwar S/o Shri Shobh Rai Kunwar Aged About 53 Years In Charge Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Collector Cum District Magistrate District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Dr. Shyam Shankar Raj Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Darbha, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents

¶12

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶13

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner :- Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate For State :- Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A. For Respondent No.3 :- Dr. Sudeep Agrawal & Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocates

¶14

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order On Board

07.03.2025

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶19

“10.a) Allow the instant petition with consequential relief

¶20

10.b) Quash the order rejecting representation dated 24/12/2024 passed by State of Chhattisgarh under signature of Avar Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar CG (Annex. P/2);

¶21

10.c) Quash the impugned Order bearing number F - 1-66/2024/17/1 Dated 16/08/2024 Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar passed by State of Chhattisgarh under signature of Special Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar CG QUA PETITIONER (Annex. P/2); 10.d) Grant such further and/or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions, as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. ”

¶22

2. The grievance of the petitioner in this second round of litigation is against his transfer from the post of In Charge Chief Medical and Health Officer, Narayanpur to the post of Medicine Specialist, District Hospital, District Bijapur to accommodate respondent No. 3 who is not only junior to the petitioner but also belongs to a lower cadre. First petition WPS 5451/2024 was disposed off granting liberty and interim protection to the petitioner allowing him to file representation and further directing the State to decide the same. Thereafter, the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the State.

¶23

¶24

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in service on 09/03/2006, and was promoted on 31/12/2020. Thereafter, the petitioner has been transferred from the post of In Charge Chief Medical and Health Officer, Narayanpur to the post of Medicine Specialist, District Hospital, District Bijapur to accommodate respondent No. 3 who is not only junior to the petitioner but also belongs to a lower cadre. The respondent No. 3 was appointed on 03/04/2006 and is junior to the petitioner and belongs to a lower cadre. Being aggrieved by the same, a writ petition bearing WPS 5451/2024 was filed challenging transfer wherein orders were passed granting liberty and interim protection to the petitioner allowing him to file representation and further directing the State to decide the same. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner filed detailed representation urging amongst other grounds specifically that he is being posted under a junior officer. Thereafter, the State Government has rejected the representation by a cryptic order without meeting out the grounds urged and silent on the point of posting under a junior officer which is barred by State Government circulars. Hence, this petition.

¶25

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned rejection of representation and the transfer order have been passed in high handed and arbitrary manner and are in gross violation of the general policy of the State Government which regulates effecting transfers during ban period by requiring coordination, and transfer which would result in giving the charge

¶26

¶27

of the post to a junior. It is submitted that the petitioner has been transferred as In-Charge Chief Medical & Health Officer, Narayanpur to the post of Medicine Specialist, District Hospital, Bijapur, however, in Bijapur, he would to work under his junior namely Dr. Ratna Thakur, who is already posted there, as such, by the impugned transfer order, he has to serve under a junior, hence, the said order is not in accordance with law. He submits that the petitioner has worked more than two years in Narayanpur but has not completed 3 years and if he has to be transferred, he should be transferred to such place where he has not to work under any junior Officer. He submits that the impugned transfer is bad because it has been passed to accommodate respondent No. 3. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned rejection of representation and the transfer order Annexure P/1 and Annexure P/2 be quashed and the petition may be allowed.

¶28

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as the respondent No.3 has already been accommodated in place of the petitioner and opposes the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶29

6. Learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.3 submits that the respondent No.3 has been transferred to Narayanpur, however it seems that the petitioner wants to be remain at Narayanpur, as such, if the said order is quashed, then it will affect the posting of the respondent No.3, and accordingly, this is not a case in which the transfer order requires any interference.

¶30

¶31

He submits that the caveator has already joined at Narayanpur and Dr. Ratna Thakur is not junior to the petitioner. The petitioner has not made Dr. Ratna Thakur as respondent in this case, as such, the petition itself is liable to be dismissed in threshold. It is also stated that the petitioner is also facing Departmental enquiry and accordingly in all counts, he is not entitled to get any relief and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the writ petition.

¶33

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner is aggrieved by the posting of one Smt. Ratna Thakur, who is presently working in District Hospital Bijapur, but she has not been arrayed as a party respondent in this case even, in entire petition also, petitioner has neither taken any ground in writ petition nor the same is mentioned in entire petition. It appears that Smt. Ratna Thakur has been transferred as Civil Surgeon cum Chief Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital, Bijapur and the respondent No.3 has been transferred from Community Health Centre, Darbha, District Bastar to In-charge CMHO, District Narayanpur whereas the petitioner has been transferred from the post of In-charge CMHO, District Narayanpur to Medical Specialist, District Hospital, Bijapur. Thus, if the petitioner is aggrieved with the order passed in favour of Ratna Thakur, he ought to have impleaded her as a party Respondent. Since, the present petition is not a case of seniority or promotion

¶34

¶35

rather it is a case of transfer and the scope of judicial review in transfer matters is very much limited. The petitioner has not been able to point out any discrepancy in the order under challenge. The petitioner is working on a transferrable post and he cannot claim to be posted as per his choices.

¶36

9. Accordingly, this Court do not consider present to be a fit case for interference in the transfer order Annexure P/2 dated 16.08.2024 as it is upon the employer to transfer in exigency of service. It is the prerogative of the employer to transfer any employee and the employee is not having any right to question transfer order until and unless any malafide action is pleaded and proved. As such, the present petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶37

No order as to cost(s).

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶40

Vishakha

Dr. Tukaram Kunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr. Tukaram Kunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Komal Singh Thakur Vs Chhattisgarh State Legal Services Authority

Dr. Chandrashekhar Ambulkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhishek Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Panchuram Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harsh Sabharwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pintu Tandi @ Karan @ Bullu Vs State of Chhattisgarh