Ms. G.Padma Devi vs Union Of India & 3 Ors

R.S., CJ

The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:-

"i) Issue rule nisi and call for records;

ii) Issue an appropriate writ or direction as to why the order dated 18/12/2018 passed in OA. No. 042/00141/2018 by the Ld. Tribunal shall not be quashed and set aside as the same has been passed without appreciating relevant material and facts;

iii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned transfer order dated 12/01/2018 issued by the respondent authority declaring the same as illegal and unconstitutional;

iv) Pass such further order(s)/ direction(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to secure ends of justice.

AND

IN THE INTERIM, pending disposal of the writ petition the Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the petitioner to remain in her present posting at JNV Imphal West keeping in abeyance the impugned orders dated 12/01/2018 and 18/12/2018."

[2] The petitioner, in this case, is working as a Librarian in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV) at Imphal w.e.f. 17.10.2001 and after completion of more than 17 years, the case for transfer was considered on 01.01.2017. The petitioner had opted for transfer to JNV, Thoubal, Manipur and JNV, Kohima, Nagaland but the respondents authorities considering the fact that there was no vacancy in these places placed the petitioner at JNV, Ukhrul.

[3] This was challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati contending that she is suffering from Prolapse Intervertebral Disc (PIVD) with Osteo-Arthritis and Bilateral Knees with pitting edema and is undergoing treatment at Imphal. It is further pleaded that the distance between JNV, Khumbong and JNV, Ukhrul is about 100 kms and there is no proper transportation and road connectivity.

[4] On this premise, plea for retention was canvassed before the Tribunal but the Tribunal declined to interfere with the order observing that diseases which can be considered for seeking retention are (1) Cancer, 2) Paralytic Stroke, 3) Renal Failure, 4) Coronary Artery Disease, 5) Thalassaemia, 6) Parkinsons disease and 7) Motor Neuron Disease. Since the petitioner applicant does not qualify under any of the above heads, the Tribunal was of the view that there is no justification for seeking retention, that too after 16 years in service and dismissed the petition against that order the writ petition is filed.

[5] We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the same plea. The contention of the petitioner appears to be more on factual aspects of the ailments suffered by the petitioner, which admittedly, does not fall within the parameters of diseases which can be considered for seeking retention. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in holding that the applicant has not made out a case for retention as there is no violation of any of the rules.

[6] We find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter. Transfer is an exigency of service. Petitioner had the benefit of serving in one place for 16 years. Transfer cannot be challenged on the plea as above as it is not in violation of any rule or regulation.

[7] The petitioner is given liberty to make a representation to the authorities for posting her at any other places if there is vacancy available, and such representation can be considered on its own merit.

We express no opinion on the merits of the claim.

[8] The writ petition stands disposed of as above.