D. RAMKUMAR Vs. PONDICHERRY SOCIETY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is preferred against the order made in W.P. No. 33715 of 2013 dated 27.6.2014 wherein the learned single Judge upheld the order of transfer dated 25.11.2013, transferring the appellant, who is 100% blind person, from the third respondent/Kasthurba College for Women, Villianur, Puducherry to the fourth respondent/Rajiv Gandhi Arts & Science College, Thavalakuppam, Puducherry. The appellant, who is a Doctorate degree-holder in English, is a 100% visually challenged person and he is working as Assistant Professor and Head of the Department of English Department in the third respondent/Kasthurba College for Women, Villianur, Puducherry, from the date of his appointment on 6.2.2009. The Pondicherry Society for Higher Education, Puducherry, is the appointing authority of the appellant, which has established and is administering six colleges in Puducherry, including 3rd and 4th respondent Colleges. The said Society is controlled by the Government of Puducherry. Initially appellant was appointed as Lecturer in English and subsequently re-designated as Assistant Professor and after declaring his probation on 28.8.2011, the appellant was given the status of Head of the Department (HOD) in English Department. The third respondent College, where the appellant was employed is situated 9 kms away from the place of his residence and the appellant used to go to the College with the help of his colleague, who is staying close to his residence at No. 12, Kulathu Mettu Street, Puducherry.

(2.) By order dated 25.11.2013 the second respondent Member-Secretary of the Society transferred the appellant from the 3rd respondent/Kasthurba College for Women, Villianur, Puducherry to 4th respondent/Rajiv Gandhi Arts and Science College, Thavalakuppam, Puducherry, which is located 18 Kms away from his residence. On 27.11.2013 the appellant sent a representation requesting the first respondent to cancel the transfer order considering his 100% visual disability by following the official memorandum dated 10.5.1990 issued by the DOPT, Government of India, which states that visually challenged persons should be posted close-by. According the appellant, the second respondent has transferred the appellant to the 4th respondent College under the impression that he was instrumental in giving complaint of sexual harassment by one K.T. Anju, Lecturer working in the third respondent College against one Shaji, Lecturer, but he has nothing to do with the said complaint said to have been given by the said K.T. Anju.

(3.) The learned single Judge treating the transfer as an administrative order, dismissed the writ petition believing the version stated in the counter affidavit stating that the appellant is owning a car and he has also engaged a driver, and he used to attend the college in his car by travelling 9 kms, and similarly he can attend the 4th respondent college also. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that transfer being an incidence of service, appellant is not entitled to challenge the same, and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order this writ appeal is preferred.