Srinagar: Observing that government transfer policies must align with constitutional values protecting family life and substantive gender equality, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), has directed the J&K Government to decide within seven days a representation filed by a woman gynaecologist challenging her deployment to the remote Gurez area of Bandipora district.
The Tribunal, while referring to the Supreme Court judgment in S.K. Nausad Rahman and Others v. Union of India and Others (2022), observed that the administration must actively consider the physical vulnerability, health conditions and familial responsibilities of a woman doctor before enforcing postings at difficult stations.
The direction was passed by Tribunal Member (Judicial) M S Latif while disposing of an application filed by Medical Officer (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) at Sub-District Hospital (SDH), Chadoora, Dr Nusrat Nabi Lone.
The petitioner had challenged the Health department’s order dated October 24, 2026, deploying her to Community Health Centre (CHC) Dawar, Gurez, on a temporary basis to ensure the availability of gynaecological services in the remote area during the forthcoming winter season.
Dr Lone’s counsel argued that previous arrangements for providing specialist services in Gurez had generally involved male doctors and that her deployment represented a departure from the established practice.
The order was challenged as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Opposing the petition, the government’s counsel submitted that the deployment had been approved by the competent authority.
The government also pointed out that the petitioner was originally a resident of Khandyal, Gurez, and belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category.
The respondents further referred to a recent incident in Gurez in which a pregnant woman reportedly died while being taken to Bandipora hospital — with the baby also being stillborn — amid referral delays.
Emphasising the constitutional obligation of the State to provide adequate healthcare, particularly in rural and tribal areas, the Tribunal observed that the right to health and medical treatment is an integral facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments, including Paschim Bengal Khet Mazdoor Samiti v. State of West Bengal and State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla, the Tribunal underscored the State’s responsibility to ensure adequate medical infrastructure, trained staff, medicines and specialist doctors.
The Tribunal, however, observed that transfers and deployments are generally matters falling within the administrative domain of the competent authority and that courts ordinarily do not interfere unless an order is shown to be mala fide, issued by an incompetent authority or contrary to service rules.
CAT also observed that an employee cannot claim transfer as a fundamental right, while making it clear that administrative decisions must be exercised honestly, reasonably and in the interest of public service.
It noted that Dr Lone had already approached the Commissioner Secretary, Health and Medical Education department, seeking reconsideration of her deployment on medical and humanitarian grounds, but her representation had not been decided.
Holding that the filing of a representation creates a corresponding obligation upon the authorities to consider and dispose it of, the Tribunal directed the respondents to decide the matter within seven days from the date a copy of the order is served upon them.
It further directed that the petitioner shall not be disturbed from her present place of posting at SDH Chadoora during the seven-day period and that the government must pass a reasoned (speaking) order on her representation.
