Absence of Specific Pleading Regarding Lack of Transportation Facilities Precludes Challenge to Physically Disabled Employee’s Transfer

The appellant, an Assistant Veterinary Field Officer (AVFO) with a 50% permanent physical disability, was transferred from Mungeli District to Jashpur District via an order dated 08.01.2025.

The appellant challenged the transfer on grounds of physical hardship, violation of disability circulars, and factual errors in the transfer order (misstating his current place of posting).

After multiple rounds of litigation and a rejected representation, the appellant filed W.P.(S) No. 312/2026.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 14.01.2026, leading to the present writ appeal.

Whether the transfer order was liable to be set aside on the grounds of the appellant's physical disability and the mandates of the Transfer Policy and state circulars.

Whether there were any palpable infirmities or perversities in the Single Judge's order that warranted interference in an intra-court appeal.

The Court considered Clause 2.8 of the Transfer Policy, 2022, which stipulates that physically challenged employees should be posted at places with suitable conveyance facilities "as far as possible".

It examined the Circular dated 30.08.2010, which governs preferential posting for physically handicapped employees but is restricted to district cadre Class-III and Class-IV employees.

The Court also applied the settled principle of intra-court appeals that interference is only warranted if the impugned order exhibits palpable infirmities or perversity.

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's reasoning that Clause 2.8 of the Transfer Policy was not violated because the appellant failed to prove that the distict headquarters of Jashpur lacked basic conveyance facilities.

Regarding the Circular dated 30.08.2010, the Court found it inapplicable because, although the appellant is a Class-III employee, he holds a State cadre post rather than a district cadre post.

The Court further noted that the appellant had been stationed in his home district for over 20 years since 2003, diminishing the claim of arbitrary displacement.

The Division Bench concluded that the Single Judge provided cogent and justifiable reasons, and the appellant failed to demonstrate any legal or factual perversity that would justify overturning the decision.

The Court answered the issues in the negative, affirming that the transfer did not violate statutory or policy protections and that the appellant’s long tenure in his home district weighed against his plea for relief.

No costs were awarded.