Bombay High Court
Devyani C. Naik vs State Of Goa Thr. Chief Secretary And Anr on 13 August, 2024
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2024:BHC-GOA:1313-DB
WP-382-2024.doc
Andreza
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 382 OF 2024
Mrs. Devyani C. Naik, Wife of Chandan Naik,
Major in age of 44 years, Indian National,
LPSI, AHTU Panaji, Resident of Flat No. S-1, ...... Petitioner
Singhbal Residency, Warkhande, Ponda-Goa.
Versus
1. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary,
having Office at Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa.
2. The Director General of Police, /Office of
the Inspector General, Panaji-Goa. (Registered
...... Respondents
Address)
-----------------------------------------
Mr. Dhaval Zaveri, Advocate with Mr. Nehal Govekar and Mr. S.
Kamulkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr. Siddharth Samant,
Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 and 2.
----------------------------
CORAM: M. S. KARNIK &
VALMIKI MENEZES, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 12th AUGUST 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 13th AUGUST 2024
Page 1 of 23
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
JUDGMENT (Per M. S. Karnik, J.)
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to enforce the effect
of Office Memorandum dated 18.03.2024 issued by the Director of
Social Welfare, Panaji, Goa. The petitioner prays for a direction to the
respondent no.2 to exempt the petitioner from the routine exercise of
transfer/rotational transfer and consequently for quashing and setting
aside the impugned order dated 14.02.2024. By the impugned
transfer order, the petitioner is transferred from SB Centre Ponda to
AHTU Panaji.
2. This petition invokes the provisions of 'The Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016', ('The Disabilities Act', for short). Before
elaborating any further, it would be apposite to briefly state that the
petitioner's son 'K', is certified by the Institute of Psychiatry and
Human Behaviour, Bambolim, Goa, a competent authority under
Section 2(e) read with Section 57(1) of the Disabilities Act, to be
suffering from mild autism between 40 to 60 percent as a permanent
disability in relation to autism. The suffering of 'K' is increasing.
Considering the nature of the disability, it is the case that petitioner's
presence needs to be in his close proximity. 'K' is studying in a school
at Ponda where facilities for children with special needs is available.
The petitioner is not averse to a transfer but is concerned with the
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
special needs of 'K'. For this reason, she prays for an exemption from
the routine transfer/rotational transfer.
3. The law of transfer is well settled. The petitioner is working in a
transferable post. The petitioner cannot claim a vested right to remain
in a particular post. Transfer is a routine exercise on completion of a
specified tenure or for administrative exigencies even before the
completion of the tenure. The impugned order transferring the
petitioner was an exercise carried out pursuant to the directions of
Election Commission of India. Ordinarily, there was no reason to
interfere with such transfer. This Court by an interim order, stayed
the impugned order of transfer. During the pendency of the petition,
the petitioner has completed her tenure at Ponda. According to the
respondents, she is now subject to a routine transfer. The scope of
interference in such transfers hardly exists except on the very limited
grounds available if the transfer is arbitrary or smacks of malafide or is
contrary to the statutory provisions governing transfers. With these
considerations in mind, we proceed to examine the facts of the case.
4. The petitioner was appointed as a Lady Police Sub-Inspector on
14.06.2002 and is working as such for almost 22 years. The
petitioner's husband is presently employed with Reliance Industries at
Merces-Goa. His office timings are from 8.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. Two
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
children are born out of the said wedlock. The petition concerns
Master 'K', who is at present around 10 years of age. The petitioner
with her family, is permanently residing at Ponda, Goa.
5. As indicated earlier, 'K' is certified by the competent authority
under Section 2(e) read with Section 57(1) of the Disabilities Act to be
suffering from mild autism between 40 to 60 percent as a permanent
disability in relation to autism. By an Order dated 20.09.2019, the
petitioner was transferred from PHQ Panaji to SB Centre, Ponda. By
an Order dated 01.06.2020, the petitioner was directed to look after
the charge of SB Centre Curchorem. By Order dated 09.09.2020, the
petitioner was directed to report to SB(HQ) Panaji, immediately for
further duties till further orders. By an Order dated 16.09.2020, the
petitioner was directed to continue to work at SB Centre Curchorem,
till further orders. On 01.02.2021, the petitioner made representation
to the respondent no.2 for sympathetic consideration with a request to
revert the said posting from SB Centre Curchorem to SB Centre
Ponda. The petitioner was transferred on 16.02.2021 from SB Centre
Ponda to AHTU, Margao. The petitioner was relieved from Ponda. On
13.09.2022, the respondent no.2 transferred the petitioner from
AHTU Margao to SB Centre Ponda, which was followed by a relieving
order dated 26.09.2022.
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
6. In respect of the petitioner's son 'K', the certificate dated
28.04.2023 says that he is suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder,
a permanent disability now escalated to 70 percent as certified by the
Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Bambolim, by the
Government of India declaring the disorder.
7. By the impugned Order dated 14.02.2024, the petitioner is
transferred from the present posting at SB Centre, Ponda to AHTU
Panaji. The petitioner made a representation to the Superintendent of
Police asserting that she is the mother of said 'K', who is suffering
from permanent disability to the extent of 70 percent of Autism
Spectrum Disorder. She pointed out that her personal attention is a
must for the reason of which the transfer to Panaji may have serious
consequences affecting the life and limb of 'K' as a result of the
distance and in case 'K' needs immediate attention. The petitioner
requested for retaining her at SB Centre Ponda. Another
representation was made on 20.02.2024. The present petition was
filed, when by an interim order dated 19.03.2024, the impugned order
of transfer was stayed.
8. Master 'K' was admitted in St. Xavier's Academy Special School
at Old Goa. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner came
to know the results of her son on 29.04.2024 for the academic year
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
2023-2024 at St. Xavier's Academy Special School at Old Goa. The
petitioner was shocked and surprised to learn on being informed that
'K' who was in Class IV was made to sit in Class II and that he is being
demoted to ID (Intellectual Deficiency) Unit. Since the education of
'K' should not be affected, the petitioner admitted 'K' to Goa
Vidyaprakash Mandals KG and Primary School at Ponda Goa, on
03.05.2024. The said school admitted 'K' in standard IV for the
academic year 2024-2025. The petitioner filed a complaint dated
08.05.2024 to the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities;
the Chairperson of the Goa State Commission for Persons with
Disabilities and the Director of Education for the State of Goa,
requesting for action against the St. Xavier's Academy Special School
at Old Goa, for violating the provisions of the said Act and the Right to
Education Act of 2009. This Court allowed the petitioner to amend
the petition and incorporate the aforesaid challenge.
9. During the course of the hearing and as the hearing proceeded,
pursuant to the suggestions made, the learned Additional Government
Advocate Shri Samant, on instructions, genuinely made an attempt to
resolve the matter. It was submitted by him that in view of the routine
exercise that was necessary to be carried out, the petitioner needs to
be transferred. It is submitted that the respondents are ready to
accommodate the petitioner at Margao, which is comparatively closer
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
to Ponda than Panaji. It is however submitted that no assurance could
be given whether the petitioner could be posted at the SB Centre at
Margao. Learned Additional Government Advocate also submitted
that the respondents could also consider transferring the petitioner at
a field posting in Ponda but in view of the circulars and guidelines
relating to transfer, it is not possible for the respondents to retain her
at the SB Centre at Ponda. The respondents are proceeding on the
basis that the existing circulars/guidelines in the matter 0f routine
transfers have to be followed.
10. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the field posting
may have its own set of complications when it comes to attend 'K' in
an emergency. It is, therefore, requested that considering the special
needs of her chid, learned Counsel for the petitioner pleads that the
petitioner be retained at Ponda at the SB Centre Ponda.
11. The travelling time between Ponda to Margao, we are informed
is around 30 to 35 minutes. Ordinarily, in such circumstances, we
would have insisted upon the petitioner to accept the suggestion of
learned Additional Government Advocate. Though hesitatingly, the
petitioner expressed that she is not averse to a transfer at Ponda but a
field posting may have its own challenge given the complications that
may arise if she has to urgently attend to her child.
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
12. An additional affidavit dated 07.08.2024 is filed by the
petitioner indicating the compelling reasons why she needs to be in
close proximity of 'K'. Paragraph 6 of the affidavit which we refrain
from re-producing, compels us to adopt an extraordinary approach
even though this is a matter of routine transfer. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9
of the additional affidavit which indicate the predicament of the
petitioner can be re-produced which reads thus :
"7. I say that the present posting at Ponda-Goa
allows me to maintain a constant vigil over the said
and also enables me to promptly attends the said
child when in distress, as and when I receive a call.
Further the present posting does not involve
investigation or for that matter inquiry where my
presence is required at site but only to report to my
superiors.
8. However, I am compelled to say that the
posting in Margao to any other Department other
than the SB Center would require me to attend to all
the investigation and inquiries, which will disable
me to attend my child at a time of his needs when in
distress or emergencies.
9. I say that if I accept the present posting at
Margao to that of any other than the SB Centre at
Margao-Goa, the same shall entail in me abandoning
my Child which would result in unforeseen
circumstances."
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
13. Learned Additional Government Advocate in all fairness and on
instructions, submitted that having regard to what is stated in
paragraph 6 of the additional affidavit of the petitioner, the concern
expressed by the petitioner undoubtedly is genuine. We enquired with
the respondents, for our satisfaction, if there is anything adverse
reported against the petitioner during her tenure at Ponda at the SB
Center. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that
there is nothing adverse reported against the petitioner and her work
is up to the mark. He nonetheless submits that the respondents are
bound by the policy of routine transfers which does not permit them to
make any exceptions. Learned Counsel for the petitioner accepts that
she cannot claim a vested right to be retained at the SB Center, Ponda
and administrative exigencies may have to take precedence over her
personal difficulties and convenience at some point of time.
14. Given the facts of the present case, we are inclined to quash the
impugned order of transfer on purely humanitarian considerations.
We must however bear in mind that transfer is an incident of service
and no employee can claim immunity from transfer if such transfer is
not in violation of any statutory rules, arbitrary or malafide. It is not
the petitioner's case that the transfer is against the provisions
governing transfers or that the same is malafide. The petitioner says
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
that her case may be looked at purely from the stand point of the
provisions of Disabilities Act and humanitarian considerations.
15. From the materials on record, we are satisfied that 'K' as a
result of the disability of Autism Spectrum Disorder faces several
challenges. The child feels scared, isolated, depressed and anxious for
the same further aggravates this turbulent emotion to harmful
behavior, both for himself as well as to others. The child needs extra
support to reduce anxiety around changes physically and emotionally
in view of what is stated in paragraph 6 of the additional affidavit filed
by the petitioner. We do find substance in the contention of learned
Counsel for the petitioner in the context of the present facts, that the
present posting at Ponda allows the petitioner to maintain a constant
vigil over 'K' and also enables her to primarily attend to the child
when in need as and when she receives a call. The petitioner's present
duty is mainly to report to her superiors. The concern of the petitioner
that the child has to be attended immediately when the situation so
warrants is genuine. The child cannot just be left in lurch during the
time period before the petitioner can reach out to the child in case of
an emergency.
16. Undoubtedly, the scope of interference in a transfer is extremely
limited especially when the respondents are willing to transfer the
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
petitioner to a nearby posting at Margao which is at half an hour's
distance from her residence and from the school where the child is
taking education. From the medical certificate on record, we find that
the disability of the child is on the rise. The behavioural concerns
reported are not within his control.
17. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, was enacted to give effect
to the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of the
People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region. The Act
defines Persons with Disabilities as those having not less than forty
percent disability and identified seven categories of disabilities,
namely blindness, low vision, hearing impairment, locomotor
disability, mental retardation, mental illness and leprosy-cured. Over
a period of time, the conceptual understanding of the rights of persons
with disabilities has become more clear and there has been world-wide
change in approach to handle the issues concerning persons with
disabilities. The United Nations adopted its Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities laying down the principles to be followed
by the States Parties for empowerment of persons with disabilities.
India signed the said Convention and subsequently ratified the same
on the 1st day of October, 2007. The convention came into effect on
the 3rd day of May, 2008. Being a signatory to the Convention, India
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
has an international obligation to comply with the provisions of the
said Convention which required an entirely new legislation.
18. In 2010, an Expert Committee constituted under the
Chairmanship of Dr. Sudha Kaul, Vice-Chairperson, Indian Institute
of Cerebral Palsy, Kolkata submitted its report in 2011, suggesting a
Draft Bill relating to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The draft
Bill was extensively debated upon at various levels involving State
Governments and Union territories and various stakeholders.
19. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, was brought
into force on 19.04.2017. Section 2(e) defines "certifying authority"
means an authority designated under sub-section (1) of section 57.
The designated authority under Section 57 has certified the disability
of the petitioner's son 'K' suffering from mild autism between 40 to
60% disability which has now increased to 70 percent.
20. Section 2(c) says that "barrier" means any factor including
communicational, cultural, economic, environmental, institutional,
political, social, attitudinal or structural factors which hampers the full
and effective participation of persons with disabilities in society.
Section 2(d) says that "care-giver" means any person including
parents and other family members who with or without payment
provides care, support or assistance to a person with disability. In
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
terms of Section 2(h), the "discrimination" in relation to disability,
means any distinction, exclusion, restriction on the basis of disability
which is the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the
recognition, enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all
human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic,
social, cultural, civil or any other field and includes all forms of
discrimination and denial of reasonable accommodation. As per
Section 2(r) "person with benchmark disability" means a person with
not less than forty percent of a specified disability where specified
disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a
person with disability where specified disability has been defined in
measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority. As per the
definition clause Section 2(s) "person with disability" means a person
with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment
which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective
participation in society equally with others. Section 2(zc) defines
"specified disability" means the disabilities as specified in the
Schedule
21. It is pertinent to note that 'K' is suffering from more than 40
percent specified disability which presently is to the extent of 70
percent. The Schedule 2(b) to the Disabilities Act specifies that
"autism spectrum disorder" means a neuro-developmental condition
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
typically appearing in the first three years of life that significantly
affects a person's ability to communicate, understand relationships
and relate to others, and is frequently associated with unusual or
stereotypical rituals or behaviours.
22. Section 3 is a provision pertaining to equality and non-
discrimination. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 ordains that the
appropriate Government shall ensure that the persons with disabilities
enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his or her
integrity equally with others. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 says that no
person with disability shall be discriminated on the ground of
disability, unless it is shown that the impugned act or omission is a
proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Sub-section (5) of
Section 3 defines that the appropriate Government shall take
necessary steps to ensure reasonable accommodation for persons with
disabilities. Section 4 are provisions dealing with Women and
children with disabilities. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 stipulates that
appropriate Government and the local authorities shall take measures
to ensure that the women and children with disabilities enjoy their
rights equally with others. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 stipulates that
the appropriate Government and local authorities shall ensure that all
children with disabilities shall have right on an equal basis to freely
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
express their views on all matters affecting them and provide them
appropriate support keeping in view their age and disability.
23. Section 5 stipulates that persons with disabilities shall have the
right to live in the community. Section 6 obligates the appropriate
Government to take measures to protect persons with disabilities from
being subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Section 7 are provisions ensuring protection from abuse, violence and
exploitation for which the appropriate Government shall take
measures to protect persons with disabilities from all forms of abuse,
violence and exploitation. Chapter III deals with provisions relating
to measures to promote and facilitate inclusive education and the
duties of educational institutions.
24. The Department of Personnel Training has issued Office
Memorandum dated 06.06.2014 in respect of posting of Government
employees who have differently abled dependants. This was
necessitated because there was demand against a Government
employee who is a care giver of the disabled child may not have to
suffer due to displacement by means of routine transfer/rotational
transfers. This demand has been made on the ground that a
Government employee raises a kind of support system for his/her
disabled child over a period of time in the locality where he/she
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
resides which helps them in the rehabilitation. Relevant in the context
are clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Office Memorandum of 2014.
25. Pursuant to the enactment of the Disabilities Act, 2016, further
instructions are issued by the Department of Personnel and Training
in supersession of the above mentioned Office Memorandum dated
06.06.2014 with regard to the eligibility for seeking exemption from
routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer. The relevant portion
of the Office Memorandum reads thus :
"i) A Government employee who is a care-giver of
dependent daughter/ son/ parents/ spouse/
brother/sister with Specified Disability, as certified
by the certifying authority as a Person with
Benchmark Disability as defined under Section 2(r)
of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
may be exempted from the routine exercise of
transfer/rotational transfer subject to the
administrative constraints.
(ii) The term "Specified Disability" as defined in the
Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016, covers (I) Locomotor disability including
leprosy cured person, cerebral palsy, dwarfism,
muscular dystrophy and Acid attack victims (ii)
Blindness (iii) Low- vision (iv) Deaf (v) Hard of
hearing (vi) Speech and language disabilities (vii)
Intellectual disability including specific learning
disabilities and autism spectrum disorder (viii)
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
Mental illness (ix) Disability caused due to: (a)
Neurological conditions such as Multiple sclerosis
and Parkinson's disease (b) Blood disorder-
Haemophilia, Thalassemia and Sickle cell- disease
and (x) Multiple disabilities (more than one of the
above specified disabilities) including deaf blindness
and any other category of disabilities as may be
notified by the Central Government.
26. The Department of Personnel and Training, issued a fresh
Memorandum and guidelines are brought into effect from 02.02.2024.
The State of Goa adopted the Office Memorandums itself on
18.03.2024 by incorporating the aforesaid guidelines. So far as
preference in transfer/posting is concerned, the guidelines provide for
the following H preference in transfer/posting, thus :
"H. Preference in transfer/posting
As far as possible, the persons with disabilities may
be exempted from the rotational transfer
policy/transfer and be allowed to continue in the
same job, where they would have achieved the
desired performance. Further, preference in place of
posting at the time of transfer/promotion may be
given to the persons with disability subject to the
administrative constraints.
The practice of considering choice of place of posting
in case of persons with disabilities may be continued.
To the extent feasible, they may be retained in the
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
same job, where their services could be optimally
utilised.
I. Exemption from routine exercise of transfer/
rotational transfer in respect of Government
employee, who is a caregiver of Person with
Disability dependents:
(i) A Government employee who is a care-giver of
dependent daughter/ son / parents / spouse /
brother/ sister with Specified Disability, as certified
by the certifying authority as a Person with
Benchmark Disability as defined under Section 2(r)
of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2076
may be exempted from the routine exercise of
transfer/ rotational transfer subject to the
administrative constraints.
(ii) The term "Specified Disability" as defined in the
Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016, covers (i) Locomotor disability including
leprosy cured person, cerebral palsy, dwarhsm,
muscular dystrophy and Acid attack victims (ii)
Blindness (iii) Low-vision (iv) Deaf (v) Hard of
hearing (vi) Speech and language disabilities (vii)
Intellectual disability including specific learning
disabilities and autism spectrum disorder (viii)
Mental illness (ix) Disability caused due to: (a)
Neurological conditions such as Multiple sclerosis
and Parkinson's disease (b) Blood disorder-
Haemophilia, Thalassemia and Sickle celi-disease
and (x) Multiple disabilities (more than one of
the above specified disabilities) including deaf
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
blindness and any other category of disabilities
as may be notified by the Central Government.
(iii) The term 'Specified Disability' as defined
herein is applicable as grounds only for the
purpose of seeking exemption from routine
transfer/ rotational transfer by a Government
employee, who is a caregiver of dependent
daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/ sister as
stated in Para I (i) above
All the Ministries/Departments are requested to
bring the above instructions to the notice of all
appointing authorities under their control, for
information and compliance. The Department of
public Enterprises may ensure to give effect the
above guidelines in the all the central public
Sector enterprises."
(emphasis supplied)
27. Thus, the State of Goa has issued guidelines for exempting from
routine exercise of transfers/routine transfers in respect of
Government employee who is a care giver of a disabled child. We need
to profitably note the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the context of request made for grant of Child Care Leave under Rule
43(c) of the Central Civil Service (Rules) 1972. Their Lordships in
Shalini Dharmani vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
in its order dated 22.04.2024 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.
16864/2021 in paragraph 7 observed thus :
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
"7. The participation of women in the work force is
not a matter of privilege, but a constitutional
entitlement protected by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the
Constitution; besides Article 19(1)(g). The State as a
model employer cannot be oblivious to the special
concerns which arise in the case of women who are
part of the work force. The provision of Child Care
Leave to women sub-serves the significant
constitutional object of ensuring that women are not
deprived of their due participation as members of the
work force. Otherwise, in the absence of a provision
for the grant of Child Care Leave, a mother may
well be constrained to leave the work force. This
consideration applies a fortiori in the case of a
mother who has a child with special needs. Such a
case is exemplified in the case of the petitioner
herself. We are conscious of the fact that the petition
does trench on certain aspects of policy. Equally, the
policies of the State have to be consistent and must
be synchronise with constitutional protections and
safeguards."
28. In the present case, we must menti0n that the State made every
possible attempt to resolve the issue. The respondents however
submit that owing to the policy of routine transfer, the petitioner could
be posted and accommodated on transfer to a nearby Police Station,
but having regard to the nonavailability of vacancies, transfer to SB
Center cannot be assured.
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
29. This Court cannot be oblivious to the special concerns which
arise as in the petitioner's case who is a part of the police force. The
provisions of the Disabilities Act sub-serves the significant
constitutional object of ensuring that women are not deprived of their
due participation as members of the work force. If we do not take the
aforesaid view, in the facts of this case, the petitioner may be
constrained to leave the work force or face trauma if the impugned
order is given effect to despite the special needs of the child.
30. There is nothing adverse reported against the petitioner. The
child is in need of the support of his mother. The object of the
Disabilities Act can be effectuated only if the petitioner is in close
proximity to the child. The present facts are such that the child had to
be re-admitted to the school in Ponda else he would have suffered
demotion by two standards. The petitioner's transfer outside Ponda
in the present facts will be a barrier in the way of the child's full and
effective participation and inclusion in the society.
31. The petitioner's transfer on completion of a tenure is a routine
transfer. There are no compelling administrative exigencies brought
on record in the present case necessitating such a transfer.
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
32. It is not as if the administration will in any manner be
prejudiced if the petitioner is retained at Ponda. We do appreciate
that we have very limited scope in interfering with administrative
matters, transfer being essentially an administrative function which
should be best left to the respondents. In ordinary course, we could
have directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for
retention at Ponda favourably. The facts of the case are such that the
special needs of the child far outweigh the guidelines requiring the
routine transfer especially when there are no compelling
administrative reasons to transfer the petitioner from her present
place of posting. The child's Autism Spectrum Disorder has escalated
to 70 percent and hence it is imperative that the petitioner is retained
at Ponda SB Centre where she is presently posted to avoid any
untoward situation to the child.
33. It is in the peculiar facts of this case that we are inclined to
quash and set aside the impugned order. In our opinion, retaining the
petitioner at Ponda at SB Centre will help in achieving a balance
between the petitioner's effective participation in the work force as
well as taking care of the special needs of the child which ultimately
subserves the object of the Disabilities Act.
13th August 2024
WP-382-2024.doc
34. We make it clear that in future, depending upon the
administrative exigencies and considering the special needs of the
child, it will always be open for the respondents to take appropriate
decision on her transfer. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted, on instructions, that he does not wish to press for the other
reliefs prayed for in the petition.
35. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). There shall
be no order as to costs.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J. M. S. KARNIK, J.
Signed by: ANDREZA RODRIGUES
13th August 2024
EPEREIRA
Designation: Private Secretary
Date: 14/08/2024 20:14:06
