Introduction:
The case of Ms Shalu Pruthi v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) came before the Delhi High Court wherein the petitioner, a Primary Teacher employed with Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, challenged her transfer from Delhi to Kendriya Vidyalaya Babugarh Cantt. The petitioner approached the Court after the Central Administrative Tribunal declined to interfere with the transfer order. The central issue revolved around whether the petitioner’s medical condition, namely Bipolar Affective Disorder, entitled her to protection under the medical disability clause of the applicable transfer policy and whether the authorities had failed in their obligation to provide reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petitioner contended that her condition required continuous medical care and familial support, making the transfer arbitrary and insensitive. However, the respondents maintained that the transfer policy clearly stipulated specific thresholds for medical disability, which were not met in the present case. The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan was thus tasked with examining the interplay between administrative discretion in transfers, statutory rights of persons with disabilities, and the evidentiary threshold required to invoke such protections.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the transfer order was arbitrary and failed to take into account her serious medical condition. She submitted that she had been diagnosed with Bipolar Affective Disorder, a mental health condition requiring continuous treatment, monitoring, and emotional support from family members. The petitioner argued that relocating her to a distant place would disrupt her treatment and adversely affect her mental health, thereby violating her fundamental rights.
The petitioner further argued that the authorities had failed to provide reasonable accommodation as mandated under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It was submitted that the Act imposes a duty on the State and its instrumentalities to adopt a sensitive and inclusive approach towards persons suffering from disabilities, including mental health conditions. The petitioner asserted that her condition fell within the ambit of disability and that she was entitled to protection under the statutory framework.
It was also contended that the transfer policy of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan recognized medical grounds as a valid basis for seeking exemption or modification of transfer. The petitioner argued that her medical records clearly demonstrated that she was undergoing treatment for Bipolar Affective Disorder and that the authorities had failed to give due weight to these documents.
The petitioner emphasized the importance of family support in managing her condition and argued that the transfer would deprive her of this essential support system. She submitted that the decision of the authorities was mechanical and lacked consideration of her individual circumstances, thereby rendering it arbitrary and unreasonable.
The petitioner also challenged the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, contending that it had failed to appreciate the gravity of her medical condition and had erroneously upheld the transfer order without adequately examining the legal and factual aspects of the case.
Arguments of the Respondents:
The respondents, representing Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, defended the transfer order by asserting that it was issued in accordance with the applicable transfer policy dated June 30, 2023. It was argued that the policy clearly delineates the categories under which medical grounds can be invoked, including cases involving more than fifty percent mental disability.
The respondents contended that while the petitioner had produced medical documents indicating that she was undergoing treatment for Bipolar Affective Disorder, she had failed to furnish any certification establishing that her condition amounted to a benchmark disability as defined under the relevant legal and policy framework.
That it was further argued that the absence of such certification disentitled the petitioner from claiming protection under the medical disability clause of the transfer policy. The respondents emphasized that the policy must be applied uniformly and that granting exceptions without satisfying the prescribed criteria would undermine its integrity.
The respondents also submitted that transfer is an inherent condition of service, particularly in organizations like Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan where employees are liable to be posted at different locations across the country. It was argued that an employee cannot claim a vested right to remain posted at a particular place.
That the respondents denied any arbitrariness in the decision making process and contended that the petitioner’s case had been duly considered. However, in the absence of the requisite certification, the authorities were justified in concluding that she did not qualify for exemption on medical grounds.
Court’s Judgment:
The Delhi High Court, after carefully considering the submissions of both parties and examining the material on record, upheld the transfer order and dismissed the writ petition. The Court observed that the applicable transfer policy explicitly recognizes medical grounds only in specific circumstances, including cases where an individual suffers from more than fifty percent mental disability.
The Court noted that while the petitioner had placed reliance on medical documents indicating treatment for Bipolar Affective Disorder, there was no certification to demonstrate that she suffered from a benchmark disability as required under the policy or the statutory framework. In the absence of such evidence, the petitioner could not claim the benefit of the medical disability clause.
That the Court further held that the conclusion reached by the authorities and the Central Administrative Tribunal was neither arbitrary nor perverse. It emphasized that administrative decisions must be assessed within the framework of the applicable rules and policies, and in the present case, the decision was consistent with the prescribed criteria.
The Court addressed the argument relating to reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and reiterated that while the State is obligated to adopt a sensitive approach towards persons with disabilities, such claims must be supported by a factual foundation establishing eligibility under the relevant law. The mere existence of a medical condition, without meeting the statutory threshold, cannot automatically entitle an individual to special treatment.
The Court also underscored the settled principle that transfer is an incident of service and that an employee holding a transferable post cannot insist on being posted at a particular location. It observed that dissatisfaction with the place of posting does not, by itself, render a transfer order illegal or arbitrary.
That the Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to establish any legal infirmity in the transfer order or the decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that policy based decisions, when applied uniformly and without arbitrariness, must be upheld.