01Facts
The petitioner challenged orders dated 3 January 2025 and 1 March 2025 rejecting her representations concerning her transfer.
¶ 1In an earlier petition, WPS No. 538 of 2025, the High Court had directed the authorities to consider her case pragmatically, including her own medical condition and her father-in-law’s illness.
¶ 2A Medical Board confirmed that the petitioner had Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding (DUB). The Civil Surgeon advised that a conclusive opinion required a biopsy report, but the Joint Director rejected her representation without awaiting that report.
¶ 2–3The petitioner sought posting at any nearby block in the vicinity of Durg, rather than insisting on a particular posting.
¶ 3, 702Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner’s medical condition and caregiving circumstances required reconsideration of her transfer request in light of the earlier order in WPS No. 538 of 2025.
¶ 6–7ii.2. Whether the Director of Public Instructions should consider the petitioner’s request for posting at a nearby block in the vicinity of Durg.
¶ 7–803Law Applied
No statute or regulation was identified as the basis for the decision.
The Court applied its earlier direction in WPS No. 538 of 2025 that the authorities consider the petitioner’s grievance pragmatically, particularly in light of the medical documents.
¶ 6–8It further directed that the fresh request be assessed objectively and sympathetically, with due regard to the medical material and the circumstances set out in the judgment.
¶ 6–804Reasoning
The Court noted that the Medical Board had confirmed the petitioner’s DUB and that the Civil Surgeon had stated that a conclusive opinion depended on the biopsy report. In those circumstances, the medical condition warranted due consideration when assessing the transfer request.
¶ 7The Court also considered that the petitioner was not demanding a specific district or her former posting, but was willing to serve at a nearby block in the Durg vicinity, where her ailing in-laws resided.
¶ 7The Court therefore directed a fresh consideration consistent with its earlier order and the medical material, rather than itself deciding the appropriate posting.
¶ 805Holding
The Court disposed of the petition and directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation, with relevant medical documents, to the Director of Public Instructions within 10 days.
¶ 8–9The Director was directed to consider it objectively and sympathetically, in light of the earlier order, the medical documents, the Court’s observations, and the request for posting at a nearby block in the Durg vicinity, and to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.
¶ 8–9Original Court PDF
SMT. SEEMA VERMAvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
