MOHMMAD ASLAM KAKRU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a Pharmacist in respondent/health department was transferred from his position by concerned CMO and attached to District Hospital, Baramulla by respondent CMO. He challenged the same through SWP No. 1694/2006 on the ground that it was not in interest of administration which was disposed of by this Court on 2912.2006 by referring the mater to respondent Director for hearing the petitioner and passing appropriate orders who thereafter appears to have passed order No. 405 -DHSK of 2007 dated: 7.2.2007 where under he confirmed the CMO's order as being in the interest of administration where after respondent No. 5, Block Medical Officer, Uri where from petitioner had been transferred relieved him under order No. Estt/SDH/741 -43 dated: 17.2.2007.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved the petitioner has reagitated the matter through this writ petition to challenge the above said orders of Director and CMO, Uri further seeking a direction for his continuation at Uri Hospital. Grounds pleaded inter alia are that the CMO being a Class II officer was not competent to pass the impugned order of transfer which has wrongly been confirmed by Director even while petitioner's transfer is in no way in the internets of administration. It has further been pleaded that all orders aforesaid have been passed under influence of the PRO of a Minister on political considerations and as such attract the vice of malafides particularly because petitioner's attachment is not justified under service law. In reply respondents 1 to 3 and 5 have stated that respondent/Director's order was passed in compliance to previous court direction and as such the writ petition was bad particularly because the competence of respondent/CMO to transfer the employees of petitioner's class within District could not be questioned. Denying the allegation of malafides it has also been pleaded that in effect the petitioner has not been attached but posted in District Hospital of Baramulla, when he is required to work as Pharmacist. During course of submissions appearing counsel have reiterated the contents of their respective pleadings. In addition respondents counsel has also informed that petitioner has been transferred out of Uri after around 11 years of stay there, in response where to petitioner's counsel has alleged that some other Pharmacists in Uri who too are locals have a longer stay but they have not been touched whereas the petitioner has been singled out by what the learned Counsel has termed discriminatory treatment.

(3.) ON consideration I find that essentially petitioner's whole grievance is against his transfer from his native town of Uri where he has admittedly enjoyed his posting for around 11 years. On its face ordinarily the transfer should not have become the subject of such a prolonged litigation in view of the settled position government employees whatever their status are expected to obey administrative orders including those of their transfer, unless manifestly unlawful or harsh mindlessly litigating over such routine matters does not show the concerned employee in good light. Same appears to be the case instantly particularly because when on reference of the court the Head of department found the CMO's order of transfer to have been passed in the interest of administration, the apprehension of its having been passed for malaflde considerations should have vanished away from petitioner's mind which incidentally does not appear to have happened. The simple question that noses itself is that when Director of Health Services confirms the CMO's order as being well founded and proper, the petitioner cannot be heard to challenge it again employing the very same grounds which were considered in his previous writ petition resulting reference of the matter to respondent/Director. Similarly I feel the allegation of malafides even though very loudly made in the memo of petition does not exfacie appear to be well found enough to attract consideration for the simple reason that low it has been stretched by petitioner to enfold the respondent/Director also. In other words at whatever level an order comes to be passed against petitioner he extends the allegations of malaflde which ordinarily cannot be the case because all officers in the row right from BMO through CMO to Director cannot be said to be acting malaflde against the petitioner who is a mere Pharmacist in the respondent/department, particularly because no personal grudge has been urged against the officers. Instead the allegations of malafides are directed against PRO of the local Minister who is not administratively involved at any level. At this stage it may be appropriate to observe that while passing the confirmatory order, the respondent/Director has very clearly opined that the impugned transfer order along with other two previously agitated was in the best interest of administration/patient care in accordance with the standing rules for which CMO is administratively -competent as he was within his powers to order transfers of para -medical staff within his district. Thus the opinion of respondent/Director so expressed confirms the petitioner's order of transfer.