HEIRANGKHONGJAM GANITA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.12.2018 and the order reads as follows:-

(2.) From the above, it is apparent that the Tribunal dismissed the case holding that the transfer was effected based on a transfer drive of 2017-18 and the participants were asked to give their consent and the petitioner in the present case submitted the consent form which was filed by the respondent in the reply affidavit as Annexure-R/2. The same finds at page No.61 which reads as follows:-

(3.) The perusal of the application form makes it clear that the petitioner has signed the same and the counsel does not dispute it. In the column, it is stated that the petitioner is willing to participate in the transfer and does not fall under disability category. She state that she was not suffering from any other diseases which qualify for retention at the present place of work. On the contrary, the petitioner has given her choice of place for transfer as follows:- Chandel, Shillong and Churachandpur. On the basis of her written request, she was transferred to Chandel district school. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the petition because the transfer was effected by consent and on the choice of the petitioner.