Authorities must objectively consider severe medical complications when deciding representations against rationalization-based teacher transfers.

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher (L.B.) stationed at Primary School Kapathmuda, Korba, was transferred to Primary School Bankheta Pali under the State Government's Rationalization Policy dated 31.05.2025

Aggrieved by the transfer, the petitioner filed a representation before the District Level Committee, which was dismissed on 26.06.2025

The petitioner subsequently filed this writ petition seeking to quash the surplus teacher list and to be reinstated at her original posting

She asserted that she suffers from 80% burn scars due to an accident 20 years ago, requiring continuous medical treatment

The State argued that the petitioner failed to provide a disability certificate and noted the existence of an alternative remedy before the Divisional Level Committee

1. Whether the petitioner’s transfer under the Rationalization Policy was liable to be set aside due to her medical condition involving 80% burn scars

2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue an alternative administrative remedy before the Divisional Level Committee to seek relief from the transfer

The Court's decision was governed by the State Government’s Rationalization Policy (dated 02.08.2024 and 31.05.2025), which regulates the transfer of "surplus" teachers and provides a multi-tier grievance redressal mechanism through District and Divisional Level Committees

The Court also applied the principle of administrative fairness, requiring authorities to pass "speaking orders" and exercise "objective" and "sympathetic" discretion when dealing with genuine medical hardships

The Court noted the petitioner's specific medical grievance—severe complications arising from 80% burn scars—and her need for regular medical attention

While the State pointed out the absence of a formal disability certificate, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's willingness to pursue the matter through the appropriate administrative channel

The Court reasoned that since the Rationalization Policy includes a Divisional Level Committee for appeals, it was appropriate for the petitioner to present her medical evidence there

The Court emphasized that if the petitioner provides documentation proving her medical necessity, the authority must evaluate her case "sympathetically" and "objectively," ensuring she is posted near adequate medical facilities if her original posting is not feasible

The Court directed the concerned authority to decide the representation via a speaking order within four weeks of receipt

The Court specifically ordered that if the petitioner is found to be genuinely suffering from burn-related complications, the authority should consider retaining her at the original school or, alternatively, posting her in a school near the district headquarters to facilitate medical treatment