Rajasthan HC Quashes Transfer of CMHO as Deputation Without Consent, Says “Transfer from Higher to Lower Post Without Authority or Consent Is Unsustainable”
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Rajasthan Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman held that a transfer from a cadre post to a non-cadre post, without the consent of the employee, amounts to deputation and cannot be sustained under the law. The Court quashed the transfer of a Chief Medical and Health Officer (CM&HO) to the post of Deputy Controller of Hospital, ruling that such a transfer was in violation of the applicable service rules and principles governing deputation. The writ petition was allowed, and the transfer order was set aside.
The appellant, a senior medical officer in the Rajasthan Medical and Health Services, challenged an order dated January 7, 2025, by which he was transferred from the post of Chief Medical and Health Officer (CM&HO), Udaipur, to the post of Deputy Controller, District Hospital, Pratapgarh. The initial writ petition challenging this transfer was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court on January 13, 2025. The appellant then preferred the present Special Appeal before the Division Bench.
The appellant joined government service on March 17, 2005, and was subsequently promoted through various ranks. On August 3, 2022, he was appointed as CM&HO, Udaipur, a cadre post governed by the Rajasthan Medical and Health Services Rules, 1963. The impugned transfer shifted him to the post of Deputy Controller at the District Hospital, which, he contended, was not only outside the cadre but also a lower-ranking post.
The appellant challenged the transfer order on two primary grounds. First, that it was punitive in nature, made without administrative necessity, especially when most complaints against him had already been closed after preliminary inquiries. Second, that the transfer constituted deputation to a non-cadre post, which under law required his consent—consent that was neither sought nor provided.
In support of these claims, the appellant submitted that the transfer was based on complaints lodged by subordinates against whom he had taken disciplinary action, and many of those complaints had been dismissed as motivated. He further submitted that the Single Judge was misled by the respondents, who had relied on unamended versions of the 1963 Service Rules to claim that the posts of CM&HO and Deputy Controller were equivalent.
The respondents, including the State Government and health authorities, defended the transfer by stating that it was made to avoid any influence on pending inquiries. They maintained that the transfer was administrative and did not amount to demotion or deputation, arguing that the two posts were equivalent based on historical rules. They further contended that the transfer did not violate any statutory rule.
The respondents relied on rules and affidavits asserting that the posts of Deputy Director, CM&HO, and Deputy Controller were interchangeable within the cadre structure. The appellant countered by citing the amended version of the rules post-2012, which no longer listed the post of Deputy Controller of Hospitals as a cadre position under Schedule I of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Services Rules.
The Division Bench observed: “A comparative reading of the amended and unamended rules pertaining to the post held by the appellant reveals that prior to the amendment, there was a cadre post of Deputy Controller of Hospitals... After the amendment, the post of Deputy Controller of Hospitals is no longer found in the cadre list.”
It further stated: “The respondents filed an affidavit along with the unamended rules, which led the learned Single Judge to treat the post of Deputy Controller... as an equivalent post.”
Citing Supreme Court precedent, the Court recorded: “The concept of deputation involves a consensual and voluntary decision by the employer to lend the services of its employee... It also requires the consent of the employee to go on deputation.”
In particular, the Court quoted from Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar [(1999) 4 SCC 659]: “Deputation... involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not. In the case at hand, all the three conditions were not fulfilled.”
It distinguished deputation from transfer by citing Prasar Bharti v. Amarjeet Singh [(2007) 9 SCC 539]: “‘Transfer’ is limited to equivalent posts within the same cadre... whereas ‘deputation’ refers to service outside the cadre.”
Addressing the nature of the post to which the appellant was transferred, the Bench concluded: “The transfer of the petitioner from the existing post of CM&HO to the post of Deputy Controller of Hospitals clearly amounts to deputation.”
Further, the Court noted: “The learned AAG appearing for the respondents failed to bring to our notice that the post of Deputy Controller is still an equivalent post to that of Deputy Director/CM&HO.”
Summarising the governing legal framework, the Court recorded: “Transfer orders made in violation of mandatory statutory rules or without consent in deputation cases are liable to be interfered with by the Courts.”
The Division Bench allowed the appeal, setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge on January 13, 2025, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 697/2025. As a result, the writ petition filed by the appellant was allowed. The Court directed the respondents to reinstate the appellant to the position of Chief Medical and Health Officer (CM&HO), Udaipur, and to ensure that all pecuniary benefits are paid as though the appellant had continued to hold that post without interruption. The Court further directed that, in view of the circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs. All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. B.S. Sandhu, Advocate; Mr. S.K. Shreemali, Advocate; Mr. Divik Mathur, Advocate; Mr. Mayank Rajpurohit, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Anita Rajpurohit, Advocate; Mr. Sher Singh Rathore, Advocate
Case Title : Dr. Shankar Lal Bamania v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:17186-DB
Case Number: D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 175/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava , Justice Munnuri Laxman
[Read/Download order]
