The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that merit-based posting systems for medical residents cannot be arbitrarily overridden by administrative discretion. In a significant ruling, the Court set aside a transfer order that relocated a senior resident from his merit-allocated hospital to a remote facility, holding that such deviation without justification violates principles of fairness and transparency.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dr. Asfakulla Naiya, a qualified post-graduate in Oto-rhino-laryngology from Medical College, Kolkata, participated in the centralized counselling process for senior resident postings in West Bengal government hospitals, conducted under the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Directorate of Medical Education on 16.02.2023. He secured a high merit rank and, based on his preference, was initially allotted the post of Senior Resident at Profulla Chandra Sen Government Medical College and Hospital, Hooghly. He executed a self-declaration on 03.05.2025 affirming his willingness to serve at this institution under the bond terms.
Key Facts
- The petitioner completed his MD in 2021-2024 and was duly registered with the Medical Council of India.
- The counselling process for senior resident postings was conducted in accordance with Memo No. HF/O/HS(MA)/222/HFW-43011(11)/152/2022-ADMIN dated 16.02.2023.
- The SOP, as per clause 7(a), mandates that senior residents be posted through a merit-based counselling process based on final MD examination ranks.
- The petitioner was ranked sufficiently high to be eligible for his preferred posting at Hooghly.
- On 26.05.2025, the State issued Memo No. HF/O/HS(MA)/725/SF-11/2025 transferring him to Deben Mahata Government Medical College and Hospital, Purulia, without prior notice or explanation.
- The petitioner had not requested any change in posting and had explicitly declared his unwillingness to seek alteration.
- Of 871 candidates in his batch, only two - including the petitioner - were transferred outside the SOP; of 1,649 candidates across two batches, only three were similarly affected.
- All three affected candidates had participated in protests following the death of a junior doctor at R.G. Kar Medical College on 09.08.2024.
Procedural History
- 03.05.2025: Petitioner executed self-declaration for posting at Profulla Chandra Sen Government Medical College, Hooghly.
- 26.05.2025: Transfer order issued by the State to post petitioner at Purulia.
- 12.12.2025: Writ Petition (WPA No. 12310 of 2025) filed before the Calcutta High Court.
- 17.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: The transfer was arbitrary, retaliatory, and in direct violation of the State’s own SOP. The petitioner had no opportunity to be heard, and no reason was assigned for the deviation. The selective targeting of protest participants indicated mala fide intent.
For the State: The bond executed by the petitioner permitted posting anywhere in West Bengal. The State retained inherent administrative discretion to transfer officers for public interest. The SOP was merely a guideline, not a binding rule.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the transfer order dated 26.05.2025 and immediate reinstatement to his originally allotted post at Profulla Chandra Sen Government Medical College and Hospital, Hooghly.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State, having formulated a transparent, merit-based SOP for senior resident postings, could unilaterally deviate from it for a candidate who met all eligibility criteria, without assigning any objective reason, and whether such deviation constitutes arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the State’s own SOP, particularly clause 7(a), which mandates posting through merit-based counselling. He argued that the SOP was not discretionary but procedural, and had been uniformly followed for 869 out of 871 candidates. The selective transfer of only two candidates - both of whom participated in the R.G. Kar protest - suggested punitive intent. He cited Dr. Aniket Mahata v. State of West Bengal, where a coordinate bench had set aside a similar transfer, a decision later affirmed by the Division Bench and not disturbed by the Supreme Court.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the bond signed by the petitioner permitted posting anywhere in the State, thereby waiving any right to a specific location. It argued that administrative discretion in postings is inherent and cannot be fettered by internal guidelines. The SOP, it claimed, was a policy document, not a statutory mandate, and deviations were permissible in public interest.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous examination of the SOP and its implementation. It observed that the State had created a structured, merit-driven system to ensure fairness and eliminate arbitrariness in postings. The SOP was not a mere suggestion but a binding procedural framework, as evidenced by its consistent application to 869 candidates.
"The SOP has been formulated to ensure transparency, clarity, and to maintain fairness and balance in the issue of posting/deployment of doctors as senior residents. If the mandate of the SOP has been followed in the case of 869 out of 871 doctors, there is absolutely no ground for the State to say that the SOP does not apply to the petitioner."
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the bond conferred unlimited discretion. It held that while the bond permitted posting anywhere in the State, it did not nullify the merit-based process that governed initial allocation. The petitioner’s high rank and clear preference entitled him to the post at Hooghly, especially since no higher-ranked candidate had claimed it.
The Court further noted that the deviation affected only two candidates out of 871, both of whom had participated in the August 2024 protest. This pattern, the Court found, was not coincidental but indicative of retaliatory action. The State failed to provide any rational nexus between the transfer and administrative necessity.
The Court emphasized that judicial review is not an intrusion into administrative domain but a safeguard against abuse of power. Where a public authority creates a fair system and then selectively subverts it, the Court must intervene to uphold constitutional values.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court set aside Memo No. HF/O/HS(MA)/725/SF-11/2025 dated 26.05.2025 and directed the State to immediately allow the petitioner to join the post of Senior Resident in the Department of Oto-rhino-laryngology at Profulla Chandra Sen Government Medical College and Hospital, Hooghly, in accordance with his original allotment on 03.05.2025. There was no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
SOPs Are Binding, Not Advisory
- Public authorities cannot treat their own procedural guidelines as optional when they create a merit-based system.
- Once a transparent, uniform SOP is adopted, deviations must be justified by objective, non-discriminatory reasons.
- Practitioners must challenge transfers that contradict established SOPs, especially when they affect only a select few.
Retaliatory Transfers Are Unconstitutional
- Transfers motivated by participation in lawful protests constitute administrative mala fide and violate Article 14.
- Patterns of selective action against dissenting individuals are actionable under judicial review.
- Evidence of disparate treatment - such as targeting protest participants - must be raised as a ground for arbitrariness.
Merit and Preference Are Interlinked Rights
- In merit-based systems, preference is not a privilege but a procedural entitlement.
- A candidate’s rank and choice together determine allocation; neither can be ignored without violating fairness.
- Institutions must maintain vacancy records to substantiate claims that higher-ranked candidates have preempted a position.
