The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the impugned order/ letter No.1835/ Sake-2-Panch-2020 dated 29.06.2020 issued by the Special Secretary, Medical and Health, Uttar Pradesh/ respondent no.3 modifying the Office Memo No.28/2020/1819/SAKE-2Paanch-2020 dated 29.06.2020 to the extent that in place of Dr. Rajendra Kumar, Senior Consultant, UHM Hospital, Kanpur, Dr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Senior Consultant, UHM Hospital, Kanpur shall be read.
Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Medical Officer on 05.10.1990. The petitioner was promoted from time to time and vide order dated 25.08.2017, he was posted as Senior Consultant, UHM Hospital, Kanpur. Vide Office Memo dated 29.06.2020, the respondent no.6 along with other 20 doctors has been transferred from the post of Senior Consultant, UHM Hospital, Kanpur to the post of Chief Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Farrukhabad. In the Office Memo dated 29.06.2020, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned but by the impugned clarification letter, the petitioner has been transferred from Kanpur to Farrukhabad.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the respondents without considering the Government Orders and the Transfer Policies issued by the State Government from time to time. Clause 2 of the Government Order dated 29.03.2018 provides that the employees of Group 'A' and 'B' who have completed three years of service in the concerned district be transferred. In the present case, the petitioner was transferred at UHM Hospital, Kanpur on 25.08.2017, therefore, the impugned clarification letter/ order is illegal and is liable to be quashed.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has again submitted that the respondent no.6 Dr. Rajendra Kumar was posted as Additional Chief Medical Officer on 27.07.2006 and one Dr. Nepal Singh, Additional Chief Medical Officer, Gautambhudh Nagar since 01.09.2004 but they have not been transferred. While passing the impugned clarification order, the respondent authority has also not considered the fact that his wife is also posted in the same hospital as Pathologist and according to the Government Policy, if the husband and wife both are in service, they can discharge their duties in one district, so both could resides under one roof. The respondent authority while transferring the petitioner has also not considered the fact that the petitioner is also nominated as faculty in DNB Course and the persons who have nominated as faculty in DNB Course shall be kept free from transfer. Hence, the impugned clarification order/ letter is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that initially the petitioner was posted at Community Health Centre, Vidhanu, Kanpur Nagar on 29.07.2004 and thereafter, he was posted at KPM Hospital, Kanpur Nagar from 15.01.2015 to 14.08.2015 and ultimately, he was posted at UHM Hospital, Kanpur Nagar on 25.07.2017 and since, the petitioner has completed more than 14 years of service at Kanpur Mandal, he has rightly been transferred to Farrukhabad considering the administrative exigency of service. There is no violation of transfer policy. In support of his submission, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has placed reliance in the cases of Gujarat Electricity Board and another vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani; (1989) 2 SCC 602 and Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Abbas; (1993) 4 SCC 357.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has further submitted that the wife of the petitioner is not a government servant rather she is working as Pathologist in the same hospital on contract basis and therefore, the case of petitioner does not comes within the ambit of para 1(d) of the transfer policy dated 29.03.2018, which provides that in case the husband and the wife both are in government service then as for as possible, they may be posted at the same place. So far as the argument of the petitioner with regard to engagement in DNB Course is concerned, two medical officers including the petitioner were nominated out of which one medical officer, namely, Dr. Gopal Narain Dwivedi was proposed for the Autonomous State Medical College, Bahraich but the said proposal was not approved by the State Government and in these circumstances, even after the transfer of the petitioner, the said course may be properly handled by Dr. Gopal Narain Dwivedi.
I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings exchanged between the parties.
In para 8 of the counter affidavit, it has specifically been averred that initially the petitioner was posted at Community Health Centre, Vidhanu, Kanpur Nagar on 29.07.2004 and thereafter, he was posted at KPM Hospital, Kanpur Nagar from 15.01.2015 to 14.08.2015 and ultimately, he was posted at UHM Hospital, Kanpur Nagar on 25.07.2017. It has also been averred that the petitioner has completed more than 14 years of service at Kanpur Mandal but in rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has not denied the abovesaid facts.
In Clause 2 of the Government Order dated 29.03.2018, which is appended as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, it has been provided that the employee of Groups 'A' and 'B' who have completed three years of service in a district be transferred to another district and the employee of Groups 'A' and 'B' who has completed seven years of service in a Mandal be transferred to another Mandal. In the instant case, the petitioner is performing his duties at different hospitals of Kanpur Mandal for last more than 14 years and, therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned clarification order transferring the petitioner from Kanpur Nagar to Farrukhabad has been passed contrary to the Government Order dated 29.03.2018 It is well settled that any government order or transfer policies does not confer any enforceable legal right upon a government employee where the transfer has been made on exigency of administrative ground.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 akverma