Transfer orders must be justified by administrative exigency and cannot reduce a government servant's rank without consent; otherwise, they may be deemed stigmatic and subject to judicial review.

Judgment :

Munnuri Laxman, J.

1) The present Special Appeal has been filed against the order dated 13.01.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 697/2025, whereby the prayer for the quashment of the transfer order dated 07.01.2025 was rejected.

2) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner in the writ petition has preferred the present Special Appeal.

3) The background of the facts shows that the appellant was appointed as a Medical Officer on 17.03.2005 and subsequently he was promoted to the post of Senior Medical Officer on 11.07.2011 and thereafter on 12.07.2018, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Director, which is equivalent to the post of Chief Medical and Health Officer (CM&HO). The appellant was posted as CM&HO, Udaipur on 03.08.2022 and he had been working as CM&HO, Udaipur till the date of impugned transfer order.

4) The appellant’s grievance is that the impugned transfer order suffers from stigma, and further the transfer was made from the post of CM&HO/Deputy Director to the post of Deputy Controller, which is lower in rank. The petitioner was transferred from the post of CM&HO, Udaipur, to Deputy Controller, District Hospital Pratapgarh. This transfer was challenged on two main grounds: (i) there is no administrative exigency, as claimed in the transfer order, since the complaints had already been adjudicated and the petitioner was exonerated from such complaints. Therefore, the said transfer suffers from stigma; and (ii) the transfer of the petitioner from the post of CM&HO to the post of Deputy Controller, District Hospital Pratapgarh, constitutes a reduction in cadre, which the petitioner was previously holding.

5) The case set up by the respondents is that the transfer was made due to various complaints received against the appellant, and to avoid any influence on the pending inquiries regarding those complaints, he was transferred to the post of Deputy Controller, District Hospital, Pratapgarh. According to them, such a transfer does not suffer from any stigma. The other contention of the respondents is that the posts of Deputy Director, CM&HO, and Deputy Controller are equivalent posts. Therefore, the petitioner’s contention that the post of Deputy Controller is lower than the post he was holding, is incorrect.

6) The learned Single Judge, after considering the affidavit and rules submitted by the respondents, found that the post of Deputy Controller is equivalent to the post of Deputy Director/ CM&HO and that there is no reduction in rank as a result of the transfer order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, this special appeal.

7) Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

8) The primary contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the transfer order suffers from mala fides and there is no administrative exigency. The reasons assigned for the transfer were based on the premise that the complaints were still pending. In fact, the majority of such complaints have already been closed based on the preliminary inquiries. The complaints were lodged by persons working under him and they are motivated, as they were made in retaliation for disciplinary actions taken by the appellant against such individuals for negligence of their duties. Most of these complaints have also been closed. Therefore, the transfer order suffers from stigma and is liable to be interfered with.

9) The further argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge relied upon the unamended service rules produced by the respondents, which indicate that the post of Deputy Controller is equivalent to the post of Deputy Director/CM&HO. However, after the amendment, the post of Deputy Controller of Hospital is no longer an equivalent post and, in fact, such a post is no longer a cadre post governed by the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1963').

10) The learn