The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that contractual employees under the Ayurvedic, Homeopathy and Unani Samvida Sevak Rules, 2018 cannot be transferred before completing three years of service without preserving their seniority. The judgment reinforces statutory protections against arbitrary transfers and mandates procedural fairness in administrative decision-making.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dr. Deepak Naroliya, was appointed as a Community Health Medical Officer on a contractual basis on 15.12.2023 at Ayushman Arogyamandir (Ayush), Dulhagan, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh. His initial contract was for one year and has been renewed periodically, with the current engagement valid until 31.12.2026. On 16.06.2026, the State transferred him to Ayushman Arogyamandir (Ayush), Budhor, District Tikamgarh, without completing three years of service at his original posting.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was appointed on 15.12.2023 under a contractual arrangement
- His service has been renewed multiple times, with the latest extension valid until 31.12.2026
- As of the date of transfer (16.06.2026), he had served for only 18 months at Dulhagan
- The transfer was issued under the authority of the State Health Department
- The petitioner was not consulted prior to the transfer
- He filed a representation against the transfer on 18.06.2026, which remained undecided at the time of filing the writ petition
Procedural History
- 15.12.2023: Initial contractual appointment as Community Health Medical Officer
- 16.06.2026: Impugned transfer order issued from Dulhagan (Bhind) to Budhor (Tikamgarh)
- 18.06.2026: Petitioner submitted representation seeking reconsideration of transfer
- 22.06.2026: Writ Petition No. 22432 of 2026 filed before the High Court at Gwalior
- 24.06.2026: Hearing conducted before Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: The transfer violates Rule IV(C) of the Madhya Pradesh Ayurvedic, Homeopathy and Unani Samvida Sevak (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2018, which permits transfer of contractual employees only after three years of service. The transfer, if upheld, would reset his seniority and deprive him of accrued benefits. He cited Natthu Singh Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh (W.P. No. 31488/2024) as precedent.
Respondent’s Position: The State did not contest the legal validity of Rule IV(C) but defended the transfer as an administrative necessity. However, the Government Advocate conceded that the petitioner’s limited prayer - requesting a timely decision on his representation - was reasonable and unopposed.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the transfer order dated 16.06.2026
- Direction to permit him to continue at his current posting
- Alternative relief: Direction to the State to decide his representation within a stipulated time, preserving his seniority under Rule IV(C)
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a contractual employee under the Madhya Pradesh Ayush Rules, 2018, who has not completed three years of service, can be transferred without preserving his seniority, and whether the State’s failure to consider his representation violates principles of natural justice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Rule IV(C) of the Madhya Pradesh Ayurvedic, Homeopathy and Unani Samvida Sevak (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2018, explicitly restricts transfers before three years of service to exceptional circumstances. He emphasized that the transfer order, issued after only 18 months, triggers the rule’s consequence: reclassification as a fresh appointee with loss of seniority. He relied on Natthu Singh Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh to show that this Court has previously upheld the protection of seniority in similar cases. He contended that the State’s failure to respond to his representation amounted to a denial of audi alteram partem.
For the Respondent
The Government Advocate did not dispute the applicability of Rule IV(C) or the petitioner’s claim of incomplete service tenure. She acknowledged that the transfer may not meet the threshold of "exceptional circumstances" under the Rules. However, she maintained that transfers are administrative prerogatives and not subject to judicial interference unless mala fide. She did not oppose the petitioner’s limited prayer for a time-bound decision on his representation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged that transfer is an inherent incident of service and that no employee has a vested right to remain at a particular posting. It reiterated that judicial review of transfer orders is permissible only on grounds of mala fide, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory rules. The Court noted that the impugned order did not disclose any reason for the transfer, nor did it indicate that exceptional circumstances justified the premature movement.
"The petitioner has not completed three years of service as he was appointed on 15.12.2023. Therefore, due to the impugned transfer order, the petitioner is liable to be treated as a fresh appointee at the transferred place and would suffer loss of seniority."
The Court found that the State had not invoked any provision permitting transfer before three years, nor had it considered the petitioner’s representation. While the Court declined to quash the transfer order outright, it recognized the petitioner’s legitimate grievance regarding seniority erosion under Rule IV(C). The Court emphasized that the Rules are not directory but mandatory, and their violation undermines the statutory framework governing contractual service.
The Court further held that the petitioner’s request for a reasoned decision on his representation was not only reasonable but also aligned with the principles of fair administrative action. The State’s silence on the representation, coupled with the absence of justification for the transfer, rendered the process procedurally defective.
The Verdict
The petition was disposed of with the following directions:
- The petitioner shall submit a fresh representation, along with all relevant documents, seeking reconsideration of the transfer before the competent authority within 15 days from the date of this order
- The competent authority shall consider the representation, keeping in view the petitioner’s seniority under Rule IV(C) of the Madhya Pradesh Ayurvedic, Homeopathy and Unani Samvida Sevak (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2018, and the Transfer Policy dated 22.05.2026
- The authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order
- The Court explicitly clarified that it has expressed no opinion on the merits of the transfer or the representation
What This Means For Similar Cases
Seniority Cannot Be Erased Without Statutory Justification
- Practitioners representing contractual employees must insist on strict compliance with service rules governing transfers
- Any transfer before the stipulated tenure (e.g., three years under Rule IV(C)) must be accompanied by documented exceptional circumstances
- Failure to preserve seniority upon premature transfer constitutes a violation of statutory rights, not merely an administrative inconvenience
Representation Must Be Decided Reasoned and Timely
-
Administrative silence on representations violates natural justice
-
Courts will compel authorities to issue reasoned orders within fixed timelines, even if they do not grant substantive relief
-
The three-month deadline set here establishes a new benchmark for adjudicating service grievances in contractual appointments
-
Always cite the specific rule (e.g., Rule IV(C)) when challenging transfers
-
File representations promptly and retain proof of submission
-
In litigation, seek direction for reasoned orders rather than outright quashing - this increases chances of judicial intervention
