The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, delivered a significant judgment clarifying the distinction between angioplasty and heart surgery under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad transfer policy. The Court upheld the withdrawal of special category benefits from teachers who had undergone angioplasty, ruling that the procedure does not qualify as heart surgery under Clause 1.8.3 of the Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024. The judgment underscores the importance of precise medical definitions in administrative policies and the limits of judicial review in transfer matters.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, ten teachers employed in Zilla Parishad schools in Nanded district, challenged an order dated 01.01.2026 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. The impugned order withdrew their classification as Special Category Teachers, Cadre-I under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad transfer policy, thereby subjecting them to regular transfers. The petitioners had earlier been exempted from transfers on the ground that they had undergone heart surgery, a criterion for inclusion in Cadre-I under Clause 1.8.3 of the Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024.
Key Facts
- On 18.06.2024, the Rural Development Department issued a Government Resolution formulating a transfer policy for Zilla Parishad teachers. Clause 1.8.3 classified teachers who had undergone heart surgery as Special Category Teachers, Cadre-I, exempting them from regular transfers under Clause 4.2.2.
- Clause 4.2.2 stipulated that Cadre-I teachers could be transferred only upon their request and were required to submit a self-declaration in Form No. 3 along with a medical certificate from a competent authority.
- In February 2025, the petitioners submitted applications and medical certificates stating they had undergone heart surgery, seeking inclusion in Cadre-I. Based on these declarations, they were exempted from the 2025 transfer process.
- On 08.08.2025, the Government issued a clarificatory circular stating that only teachers who had undergone Bypass surgery, Open Heart surgery, or Implant surgery would qualify as having undergone heart surgery for the purpose of Cadre-I. Angioplasty was explicitly excluded from this definition.
- Following this clarification, the Zilla Parishad undertook a re-verification of teachers classified as Cadre-I. On 04.11.2025, show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners, alleging that they had provided misleading information by declaring angioplasty as heart surgery.
- The petitioners submitted replies justifying their declarations, but the Chief Executive Officer passed the impugned order dated 01.01.2026, withdrawing their Cadre-I status and transferring them to specified locations.
Procedural History
- February 2025: Petitioners submitted applications for inclusion in Special Category Teachers, Cadre-I.
- 2025 Transfer Process: Petitioners were exempted from transfers based on their declarations.
- 08.08.2025: Government issued clarificatory circular excluding angioplasty from the definition of heart surgery.
- 04.11.2025: Show-cause notices issued to petitioners for providing misleading information.
- 01.01.2026: Impugned order passed withdrawing Cadre-I status and effecting transfers.
- 2026: Present Writ Petition No. 392 of 2026 filed before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the impugned order. Contempt Petition No. 131 of 2026 was also filed, which was tagged with the main petition.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the impugned order dated 01.01.2026.
- Restoration of their status as Special Category Teachers, Cadre-I.
- Exemption from the transfers effected under the impugned order.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether angioplasty could be equated with heart surgery for the purpose of inclusion in Special Category Teachers, Cadre-I under Clause 1.8.3 of the Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024. Additionally, the Court had to determine whether the Chief Executive Officer had the authority to withdraw the petitioners' Cadre-I status and whether the impugned order amounted to disciplinary action under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioners, contended:
- The Chief Executive Officer lacked authority to pass the impugned order under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.
- The Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024 provided benefits to Cadre-I teachers who had undergone heart surgery, without defining the term. The clarificatory circular dated 08.08.2025, which excluded angioplasty, was issued without jurisdiction and could not retrospectively invalidate the petitioners' classification.
- The transfer process of 2025 had already concluded before the issuance of the clarificatory circular, and the petitioners had been legitimately exempted from transfers. The circular could only have prospective effect, and withdrawing their benefits was arbitrary and illegal.
For the Respondents
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3 (Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded), raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioners had an alternate and efficacious remedy under Clauses 5.10.1 to 5.10.4 of the Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024, which provided for appeals before the Divisional Commissioner.
He further submitted:
- The petitioners had provided misleading information by declaring that they had undergone heart surgery, whereas they had only undergone angioplasty. This entitled the authorities to withdraw their Cadre-I status under Clauses 4.2.2 and 4.2.8 of the Government Resolution.
- The impugned order was not a punishment under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1964, but a corrective administrative action taken upon verification of the petitioners' classification.
- Transfers are within the prerogative of the authorities, and judicial review is unwarranted unless the order is mala fide, contrary to statutory provisions, or passed by an incompetent authority. He relied on the observations in Maharashtra Rajya Shikshak Parishad Prathamik Vibhag v. The State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 11788 of 2025, decided on 23.09.2025).
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024 and the clarificatory circular dated 08.08.2025 to determine the scope of heart surgery under Clause 1.8.3. The Court observed:
"The Government policy promulgated under Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024 takes into account various factors while effecting transfers of teachers. A special class of teachers, who have suffered serious ailments has been created, and care is taken that they are not subjected to regular transfers so that they shall not suffer discomfort owing to their physical conditions. The list of ailments is stipulated in Clause No. 1.8 to 1.8.8. Apparently, teachers, who are suffering from serious ailments like cancer, brain diseases, thalassemia, paralysis, kidney diseases, and heart diseases are given special benefit. Clause No. 1.8.3 specifically deals with teachers, who have undergone heart surgery."
The Court noted that angioplasty is a percutaneous coronary intervention, typically performed through a small puncture in the groin or wrist using a catheter, without requiring general anaesthesia, large cuts, or stitches. In contrast, heart surgery (such as Bypass surgery, Open Heart surgery, or Implant surgery) involves cutting open the body with a scalpel under general anaesthesia. The Court held:
"The surgical process, in a broad sense, usually means cutting open the body with a scalpel under general anaesthesia. The angioplasty is procedure which can be done through a small puncture in the groin or wrist using a catheter, without any large cut or stitches. It does not require opening of body cavities and medically known as percutaneous coronary interventions and not cardiothoracic surgery."
Thus, the Court concluded that the clarificatory circular dated 08.08.2025 correctly distinguished angioplasty from heart surgery, and the petitioners, who had undergone angioplasty, were not entitled to the benefits of Cadre-I.
The Court further held that the impugned order was not a disciplinary action under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, but a corrective administrative measure taken upon re-verification of the petitioners' classification. The Court observed:
"Although Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, endeavours to contend that the petitioners are subjected to action under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1964, his contention is not acceptable, as impugned order is not in the nature of disciplinary action, but simply withdraws the benefit of Special Category Teachers, Cadre-I bestowed upon petitioners and subjects them to transfer."
The Court emphasized that the Chief Executive Officer acted within his jurisdiction by withdrawing the misclassified benefits and subjecting the petitioners to regular transfers. The Court declined to interfere with the impugned order, holding that it did not warrant judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 392 of 2026, upholding the impugned order dated 01.01.2026 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. The Court held:
- Angioplasty does not qualify as heart surgery under Clause 1.8.3 of the Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024, and the petitioners were not entitled to Cadre-I benefits.
- The impugned order was a corrective administrative action, not a disciplinary measure, and was within the jurisdiction of the Chief Executive Officer.
- The Contempt Petition No. 131 of 2026 was disposed of as infructuous in light of the dismissal of the main writ petition.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Precise Medical Definitions Are Crucial in Administrative Policies
This judgment underscores the importance of clear and precise medical definitions in administrative policies. Practitioners and administrators must ensure:
- Government Resolutions and policies explicitly define medical terms to avoid ambiguity. For instance, Clause 1.8.3 could have included a definition of heart surgery at the outset.
- Clarificatory circulars should be issued prospectively to avoid retrospective invalidation of benefits already granted.
- Employees and beneficiaries must strictly comply with the defined criteria to avoid withdrawal of benefits.
Judicial Review of Administrative Actions Is Limited
The Court reiterated that judicial review under Article 226 is not warranted unless the administrative action is:
- Mala fide (driven by bad faith or ulterior motives).
- Contrary to statutory provisions (violating the law or rules).
- Passed by an incompetent authority (lacking jurisdiction).
Practitioners must note:
- Transfers and administrative reclassifications are generally within the prerogative of the authorities, and courts are reluctant to interfere unless the action is arbitrary or illegal.
- Alternate remedies (such as appeals under Clauses 5.10.1 to 5.10.4 of the Government Resolution) must be exhausted before approaching the High Court.
Corrective Actions Do Not Amount to Disciplinary Measures
- The Court distinguished between disciplinary actions (under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1964) and corrective administrative actions (such as withdrawal of misclassified benefits).
- Employees cannot claim protections under disciplinary rules if the action is merely corrective and not punitive.
- However, authorities must ensure due process (such as issuing show-cause notices) before withdrawing benefits to avoid allegations of arbitrariness.
