Reconsideration of transfer orders issued in disregard of certified medical conditions must align with governing policies.

The applicant, initially appointed as a Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) teacher and later regularized, was serving in District Bandipora on medical grounds as certified by a Medical Board

On 19.02.2026, the Chief Education Officer (CEO), Bandipora, issued an order cancelling her medical attachment and directing her to report to Education Zone Gurez—a remote area with difficult terrain—followed by a show-cause notice on 03.04.2026

The applicant challenged these actions as arbitrary, claiming they were issued without jurisdiction, without a hearing, and in disregard of her health condition

During the hearing, the applicant’s counsel requested that the Tribunal direct the respondents to treat the O.A. as a formal representation for reconsideration

1. Whether the impugned order cancelling the applicant’s medical-based attachment was passed in violation of the governing transfer policy and principles of natural justice

2. Whether the respondents are mandated to reconsider the applicant’s placement in light of specific government orders and judicial precedents concerning medical hardships

Government Order No. 469-EDU of 2014 dated 25.06.2014, which outlines the policy for teacher placements and medical considerations

The judicial principles established by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K in Abdul Rashid Lone v. UT of J&K and Others (WP(C) No. 455/2020), which mandates the administration to consider individual medical grievances and pass reasoned orders when transfer or attachment orders are contested on health grounds

The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating the case on its merits, opting instead to ensure administrative due process

It observed that the applicant’s medical condition had been previously recognized by a Medical Board and the competent authority

By applying the logic that administrative actions must be reasonable and cognizant of established policies (specifically Govt. Order No. 469-EDU), the court found it appropriate for the respondents to re-evaluate the matter

The court linked the applicant’s right to a fair assessment of her health risks—especially regarding the "difficult terrain" of Gurez—to the requirement for a "reasoned and speaking order," thereby shifting the burden to the respondents to justify the cancellation of the attachment in light of the cited precedents

The respondents were ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within two weeks

The Tribunal granted interim relief by staying the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 for a period of two weeks, directing that the applicant be allowed to continue at her present place of deployment in Zone Bandipora during this interval

No costs were awarded