Recently, the Delhi High Court upheld the transfer of a Kendriya Vidyalaya teacher, observing that bipolar disorder, in the absence of proof of benchmark disability, does not qualify under the medical disability clause of the applicable transfer policy. The Court emphasised that entitlement to special accommodation must rest on demonstrable statutory thresholds, not merely on medical diagnosis.
Brief facts:
The case arose from a transfer dispute involving a teacher serving under a transferable cadre, who was shifted pursuant to an administrative rationalisation exercise carried out in compliance with directions of the Supreme Court. Despite being given an opportunity to indicate preferred posting stations, the petitioner could not be accommodated due to the non-availability of vacancies and was posted to another nearby location. Challenging the transfer, the petitioner sought modification on medical grounds, citing Bipolar Affective Disorder and invoking the principle of reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The competent authority rejected the request on the ground that the case did not meet the threshold prescribed under the applicable transfer policy, particularly the requirement of benchmark mental disability. This led to proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which declined interference, prompting the petitioner to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner argued that the authorities and the Tribunal failed to appreciate her medical condition, which required continuous psychiatric treatment and family support. It was contended that her case ought to have been considered under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, invoking the doctrine of reasonable accommodation. The insistence on a rigid interpretation of the transfer policy, particularly the requirement of “more than 50% mental disability”, was challenged as defeating the beneficial object of the statute. The Counsel asserted that the State must adopt a humane and inclusive approach. It was further argued that denial of posting at preferred stations, despite her medical condition, amounted to arbitrariness and violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondents, on the other hand, defended the transfer as part of a structured and transparent exercise carried out in compliance with Supreme Court directions. They submitted that the petitioner was duly given an opportunity to indicate preferences but could not be accommodated due to a lack of vacancies, and was instead posted to a nearby location. It was emphasised that the petitioner did not meet the criteria under the Transfer Policy, which specifically requires certification of more than 50% mental disability for invoking medical grounds. The medical documents submitted did not satisfy this threshold. The respondents further argued that transfer is an incident of service, and an employee cannot claim posting at a particular place as a matter of right.
Observation of the Court:
The Court reiterated the settled principle that transfer is an incident of service and judicial review in such matters is limited to cases of mala fides, arbitrariness, or statutory violation. It found that the petitioner’s transfer was part of a broader administrative exercise undertaken in compliance with Supreme Court directions and that she had been duly considered for preferred postings.
On the central issue of medical accommodation, the Court closely examined the Transfer Policy and noted that it explicitly requires “more than 50% mental disability” to qualify under the medical disability ground. While acknowledging that the petitioner was undergoing treatment for Bipolar Affective Disorder, the Court found no material establishing that she met the requisite benchmark disability. The Court held that “the material on record does not establish that she suffers from a benchmark disability or otherwise satisfies the threshold contemplated…”
The Court clarified that while the State must act sensitively towards persons with disabilities, such protection is not automatic and must be grounded in legally recognised criteria. It further emphasised that “the mere fact that the Petitioner was not accommodated at one of her preferred stations does not… render the transfer illegal or arbitrary,” reinforcing the limited scope of judicial interference in administrative transfers.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal’s order and the petitioner’s transfer. It held that in the absence of proof of benchmark disability as required under the applicable policy, the claim for medical accommodation could not be sustained.
Case Title: Ms Shalu Pruthi Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr
Case No.: W.P.(C) 3022/2026
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. R.V. Sinha, Adv. AS Singh, Adv. Shriya Sharma
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. S. Rajappa, Adv. R. Gowrishankar, Adv. G. Dhivyasri
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
