Dr. Reenu Rani vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Sri Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The petitioner claims to be suffering from epilepsy. While she has, no doubt, been working in an accessible area of Rudrapur for the past more than ten years ever since 17.12.2007, she now questions her transfer, by the impugned order dated 13.09.2018, to a remote area of Masi in Almora district. It is her case that she is suffering from epilepsy, which is defined as a 'serious ailment' under Section 3(d) of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer For Public Servants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and is consequently exempted from transfers under Section 7(d)(iii) of the Act.

Sri Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that a representation, seeking retention, has been submitted by the petitioner to the third respondent on 8th October, 2018, enclosing thereto a certificate issued by the State Medical Board that she suffers from epilepsy.

While the petitioner is, no doubt, required to be transferred as she has been working for the last more than 10 years in an accessible area, she is exempted under Section 7(d)(iii) of the Act in case she is suffering from a serious ailment as defined under Section 3(d) of the Act.

The question whether the petitioner suffers from such an ailment or not is a matter which the authorities concerned are required to examine based on the documents furnished by the petitioner, and not by this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, would point out that the impugned order of transfer has not been issued by the Director, Higher Education, Uttarakhand, but by the second respondent (Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun); and, consequently, any request for cancellation or modification of the transfer order can only be addressed to the second respondent.

Suffice it, in such circumstances, to direct that, in case the petitioner submits a representation to the second respondent enclosing thereto documentary evidence that she suffers from epilepsy and her ailment is of such a nature as to fall within the ambit of Section 3(d) of the Act, the second respondent shall, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioner, consider the petitioner's request for retention in an accessible area in accordance with law, and communicate his decision to the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.