DEVYANI C. NAIK Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to enforce the effect of Office Memorandum dtd. 18/3/2024 issued by the Director of Social Welfare, Panaji, Goa. The petitioner prays for a direction to the respondent no.2 to exempt the petitioner from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer and consequently for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dtd. 14/2/2024. By the impugned transfer order, the petitioner is transferred from SB Centre Ponda to AHTU Panaji.

(2.) This petition invokes the provisions of 'The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016', ('The Disabilities Act', for short). Before elaborating any further, it would be apposite to briefly state that the petitioner's son 'K', is certified by the Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour, Bambolim, Goa, a competent authority under Sec. 2(e) read with Sec. 57(1) of the Disabilities Act, to be suffering from mild autism between 40 to 60 percent as a permanent disability in relation to autism. The suffering of 'K' is increasing. Considering the nature of the disability, it is the case that petitioner's presence needs to be in his close proximity. 'K' is studying in a school at Ponda where facilities for children with special needs is available. The petitioner is not averse to a transfer but is concerned with the special needs of 'K". For this reason, she prays for an exemption from the routine transfer/rotational transfer.

(3.) The law of transfer is well settled. The petitioner is working in a transferable post. The petitioner cannot claim a vested right to remain in a particular post. Transfer is a routine exercise on completion of a specified tenure or for administrative exigencies even before the completion of the tenure. The impugned order transferring the petitioner was an exercise carried out pursuant to the directions of Election Commission of India. Ordinarily, there was no reason to interfere with such transfer. This Court by an interim order, stayed the impugned order of transfer. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has completed her tenure at Ponda. According to the respondents, she is now subject to a routine transfer. The scope of interference in such transfers hardly exists except on the very limited grounds available if the transfer is arbitrary or smacks of malafide or is contrary to the statutory provisions governing transfers. With these considerations in mind, we proceed to examine the facts of the case.