1 2025:CGHC:36296 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7454 of 2025 1 - Dr. Ranjip Kumar Dass S/o Late Laxmidhar Dass, Aged About 47 Years Posted As- Office Address Professor And Head, Dept. Of Panchakarma, Govt. Ayurved College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Residential Address- Plot No. Q-18, Gate No. 1, Agroha Colony, Raipura, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical Education (Ayush), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner, Ayurveda, Yoga And Naturopathy, Unani Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush) Chhattisgarh Indravati Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Additional Secretary, Department Of Medical Education (Ayush), Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - The Principal, Shri Npa Government Ayurved College, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - The Principal, Government Ayurved College, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Dr. Harindra Mohan Shukla, Posted As Controller, Drug Testing Laboratory And Research Centre, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.C. Verma, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.05 19:37:15 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is a Professor (Panchkarma) and posted at Govt. Ayurvedic College, Raipur has been transferred to Govt. Ayurvedic College, Bilaspur on administrative exigency and he prayed for the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “In view of the aforesaid facts and grounds, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:- a) Quash and set aside the impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2025 whereby the Petitioner has been transferred from Government Ayurved College, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), to Government Ayurved College, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Annexure P-1) and the consequential relieving order dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure P-2), issued by the Respondents. b) Quash and set aside the impugned transfer order dated. 30.06.2025 whereby, the private respondent, namely Dr. Harindra Mohan Shukla, has been transferred from the post of Controller, Drug Testing Laboratory and Research Centre, Raipur, to Government Ayurved College, Raipur, in place of the Petitioner (Annexure P-1). c) Issue a writ, order or direction directing the Respondent Authorities to conduct an independent and impartial inquiry into the circumstances under which the private 3 respondent has been continuously posted in Raipur over the years(since 1999), including the manner in which he has repeatedly secured favourable postings in Raipur, despite transfer norms; and further to investigate how he is operating a private hospital/nursing home in the name and style of AYURVEDAM while drawing Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA), and to identify the departmental officers and authorities who have facilitated or abetted such violations. d) Direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue on the post of Professor (Panchakarma) at Government Ayurved College, Raipur, in view of his subject-specific qualification. e) Pass any other relief(s), order(s), or direction(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is Professor (Panchkarma) and he has been transferred from Govt. Ayurvedic College, Raipur to Govt. Ayurvedic College, Bilaspur in place of the respondent No.6, who is the Professor (Kayachikitsa). The qualification of the respondent No.6 is M.D. Kayachikitsa and Ph.D. Kayachikitsa, whereas the petitioner’s qualification is M.D. Panchkarma. As per the notification dated 16.02.2022, issued by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (Minimum Standards of Undergraduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2022 (in short’ the Regulations, 2022’) has been framed, and as per regulation 17, the essential qualification for teaching staff would be the postgraduate 4 qualification in Ayurveda in concerned subject or specialty from an university recognized by Central Council of Indian Medicine or National Commission for Indian System of Medicine under the Act. Regulation 17(b) also describes the experience for the post of Professor, in which also the post-graduation qualification in concerned subject, is the required qualification for the post of Professor. He also produced the Table-1 given in Chapter-III of the said Regulations of 2022 and as per entry No. 11, the Kayachikitsa is an internal medicine and as per entry No.12, the Panchkarma is a procedural management. The entry-D and J also separates the Kayachikitsa and Panchkarma, as given in scheduled-VI of Regulations, 2022, which is the minimum essential requirement of Yogya Clinical Skill Laboratory for Postgraduate Departments. He would also submit that the Kayachikitsa and Panchkarma are different branch and having different work in the field. He would further submit that the State Government is going to start higher courses at Shri Narayan Prasad Awasthi Govt. Ayurved College, Raipur in Panchkarma, for which the experienced Professors of Panchkarma stream are required, but in place of the petitioner, the respondent No.6, who is the Professor (Kayachikitsa) has been brought through the impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2025. The impugned transfer order is to accommodate the respondent No.6 in place of the petitioner. The respondent No.6 is working there since 1999, he is having a huge private practice and a big hospital just about a distance of 5 minutes from his house, and he is having political support. Earlier, a complaint was made against him 5 by a lady and an inquiry was conducted by Vishakha Committee, Raipur and there was allegation against the respondent No.6 and he was transferred to Bilaspur and came back after a few months. There is a clear mala fide and arbitrariness on the part of the State Government while transferring the petitioner from Raipur to Bilaspur and to bring an incompetent professor to teach Panchkarma in the college, who is not having qualification for the same. He would also refer the report lodged by the lady and report of the Vishakha Committee, in which there are positive allegation against the respondent No.6 and instead of protecting the petitioner, the State Government protecting the respondent No.6. There should be fair play on the part of the State Government and the impugned transfer order smells some extraneous consideration while transferring the petitioner and the respondent No.6, therefore, the impugned transfer order is liable to be quashed. Against the transfer order dated 30.06.2025, the petitioner has made his representation on 02.07.2025 before the respondents No.1 and 2, but his representation has not been considered till date. He would rely upon the ILR 2020 Chhattisgarh 1561 (Dalsoo Ram Darro v. State of Chhattisgarh), AIR Online 2022 CG 363 (Sachidanand Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh) and AIR Online 2023 CG 72 (J.K. Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh). 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the transfer of the petitioner is strictly in accordance with the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025 and on administrative exigency. He would submit that on 05.12.2024, a 6 clarification has been issued by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, in which regulation 8(2) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (Minimum Essential Standards, Assessment and Rating for Postgraduate Institutions and Minimum Standards for Postgraduate Education in Ayurveda) Regulations, 2024 have been clarified and according to which, the Professor-cum-Head of Department may be common for both undergraduate and postgraduate departments of the concerned subjects, provided the professor is possessing the postgraduate degree in the concerned subject. Further, in the regulation 17(b)(x) of the Regulations, 2022, it has also been clarified that the teacher of concerned department (either postgraduate in the concerned subject or allied subject), will be considered as recognized teacher of the department and will be eligible for all the privileges of the concerned department. The same clarification will be applicable on the other areas of relevant contexts of said regulations. He would further submit that after this clarification the respondent No.6 is competent enough to transfer in place of the petitioner. He would also submit that in the inquiry report of Vishakha Committee, the respondent No.6 has not been held guilty and the disciplinary action is proposed against other employees. It is also submitted by him that, there is no violation of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 and the representation of the petitioner dated 02.07.2025 is pending before the authorities concerned as provided under clause 8 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner challenging 7 the transfer order is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that, he is a Professor (Panchkarma) and the respondent No.6 is the Professor (Kayachikitsa) and only to accommodate him at Raipur, the petitioner has been transferred to Bilaspur. The petitioner tried to make out the case that the State Government is going to open new higher courses in Shri Narayan Prasad Awasthi Govt. Ayurved College, Raipur in Panchkarma and the respondent No.6, who is the Professor (Kayachikitsa) is brought in place of the Professor (Panchkarma), who is not competent to teach Panchkarma. The regulation 17(a)(ii) and (b) of the Regulations, 2022 provided the qualification and experience in teaching staff, which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “17. Qualifications and experience for teaching staff.- (a) Essential qualification: (ii) a Post-graduate qualification in Ayurveda in the concerned subject or specialty from a university recognised by Central Council of Indian Medicine or National Commission for Indian System of Medicine under the Act; (b) Experience- (i) For post of Professor.- (A) Ten years of teaching experience as regular teacher in the concerned subject or five years teaching experience as Associate Professor (Reader) on regular basis in the concerned subject, or (B) Ten years research as full-time researcher (after 8 possessing Post-graduate qualification experience in the concerned subject) in Research Councils of Central Government or State Government or Union territory or University or National Institution or National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NAIBL) accredited Research Laboratory or ten years of experience in regular service (after possessing Post-graduate qualification in the concerned subject) in Central Government Health Services er State Government Health services, Ministry of Ayush or ten years of experience (after possessing Post-graduate qualification in the concerned subject) as Assistant Registrar or Registrar in Central Council of Indian Medicine having qualified National Teachers Eligibility Test from the date it is operational and with any one of the following three criteria, namely: (i) Minimum of five research articles published in index journals (UGC-CARE, PubMed, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, SCOPUS), or (ii) Minimum of three research articles published in index journals (UGC-CARE PubMed, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, SCOPUS) and one Published book or Manual relevant to Ayurveda, or (iii) Investigator for any major research project (duration of the project three years and above as per the sanctioned letter), and (iv) Having post-graduate qualification in concerned subject except in the subjects of specialty of Shalya, Shalakya and Stree Rog evam Prasuti tantra: Provided that the in-service candidate shall have completed his post-graduation in concerned subject before the completion of forty-five years of his age.” 9 6. The entry No. 11 and 12 of Table-1 of Chapter-III of the said Regulations of 2022 is also reproduced hereinbelow:- CHAPTER-III Postgraduate Degree Programmes 4. On and from the date of publication of these regulations, there shall be eighteen Postgraduate Degree programmes in Ayurveda. The list of Postgraduate specialities, nomenclature of Postgraduate Degree programmes, nomenclature of Postgraduate specialists, Postgraduate Departments that conducts the Postgraduate programmes shall be as detailed in the Table -1. Table-1 Nomenclature of Postgraduate Degrees, Postgraduate Specialists and Postgraduate Departments Serial Number Post Graduate Specialty Nomenclature of Postgraduate Degree Program Nomenclature of the Postgraduate Specialist including Equivalent Modern Terminology Department Conducting Postgraduate Programme (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 11. Kayachikitsa (Internal Medicine) MD (Kayachikitsa) Kayachikitsa Tajna (Ayurveda Specialist-General Medicine) Kayachikitsa 12. Panchakarma (Procedural Management) MD (Panchakarma) Panchakarma Tajna (Panchakarma Specialist) Panchakarm a 7. From the clarification dated 05.12.2024, issued by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, it is clarified in regulation 8(2) of the Regulations, 2024 that “Professor-cum-Head of the Department may be common for both undergraduate and postgraduate departments of the concerned subject, provided the professor is possessing postgraduate degree in the concerned subject”. Further, clause 17(b)(x) of the Regulations of 2022 has been clarified which reads as under:- “17(b)x).- The teachers got appointed in allied subjects, if desires to return to parent department, 10 they may return within three years from the date of notification of this regulation and in such case, the allied subject experience of National Commission for Indian System of Medicine approved teachers shall be considered as regular experience in parent department and the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine approved teachers who remained in allied subjects shall be considered as regular teacher of respective department and eligible for promotion as regular teacher as specified in this regulation" In this regards, it is clarified that the teacher of concerned department (either post-graduate in the concerned subject or allied subject), will be considered as recognised teacher of the department and will be eligible for all the privileges of the concerned department. The same clarification will be applicable on the other areas of relevant context of said regulations.” 8. From a specific query made from the learned counsel for the parties that, whether the Professor (Panchkarma) and Professor (Kayachikitsa) are separately sanctioned posts in the Ayurvedic College or it is only the sanctioned post of Professor in the Ayurvedic College, they submitted that only the post of Professor is there and there is no sanctioned post for Professor in Panchkarma and Kayachikitsa separately. 9. Although the petitioner has raised the ground that there are allegations against the respondent No.6 by a lady and the matter was inquired by the Vishakha Committee, Raipur and there is an observation in para 8 of the said report of the Vishakha Committee. Further, the respondent No.6 was also a party (respondent No.5) in WPC No. 5270 of 2021, 11 which was filed by the said lady, who has made complaint and the earlier transfer of the respondent No.6 from Raipur to Bilaspur and in the year 2022, he again came to Raipur are not having the substantial barring upon the impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2025, which makes the said transfer order of the petitioner mala fide or arbitrary. It is for the State Government to consider the placement of the employees on the administrative exigency. Though the petitioner claimed that the respondent No.6 is not competent to teach Panchkarma, as he is having the qualification of Kayachikitsa, but from the impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2025, it transpires that the respondent No.6 is being considered as Professor (Panchkarma) by the State Government. Present is not a case, where qualification or competency of the employees are to be decided, but it is only mala fide or arbitrariness is seen in the transfer order. The petitioner could not demonstrate the violation of any condition of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 and his submissions revolves up to the competency of the respondent No.6 to teach a particular subject in the college. There may be some new higher courses opening in the Govt. Ayurved College, Raipur and it is for the State Government to consider the requirement of the teachers/professors there for the relevant subjects under the Regulations. 10. The judgment of “Dalsoo Ram Darro” (supra) relates with transfer of Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer, and there was difference in both the posts and the consideration was the transfer and filling up of the posts by two different cadres. Here in the present case, the 12 cadre of both the petitioner as well as the respondent No.6 are same, only their subjects are different. The judgment of “Sachidanand Sahu” (supra) relates to the political inference in the transfer order, but here the petitioner do not demonstrate any political influence in the transfer order, rather the respondent No.6 is presently posted at the office of Controller, Drugs Testing Laboratory and Research Centre, Raipur and has been transferred to Govt. Ayurved College, Raipur on his own request. Even, in the said judgment of “Sachidanand Sahu” (supra), it has been observed that there can be no hard and fast rule that every transfer at the instance of MP or MLA, would be vitiated. It all depends upon facts and circumstances of the individual case. In the case of “J.K. Prasad” (supra), the consideration was to fill up the posts by the officers of same cadre and the judgment of “Dalsoo Ram” was considered in “J.K. Prasad” case. the facts and consideration in the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable to the facts and consideration in the present case and the benefits could not be extended by the same. 11. The petitioner has already made his representation on 02.07.2025 before the respondents No. 1 and 2 under clause 8 of transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 and it is for the authorities concerned to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the applicable rules and circulars. In the present writ petition, the petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity, mala fide or arbitrariness in the impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2025, which warrants interference in the present petition. 13 12. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service, the Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order, unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. The employees may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person, if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. [see Airport Authority of India v. Rajiv Ratan Pandey and others, 2009 (8) SCC 337 and Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and others v. G. Ratnam and others, 2007 (8) SCC 212 and also Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Suppl. 2, SCC 659]. Further, from the documents annexed with the petition and the instructions submitted by the respondents/State, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. 13. In view of the above settled legal position and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference with the impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved