MEENAKSHI RAJPUT vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT on 31 December 2024

ORDER

1. The Original Application has been filed by the applicant making therein the following prayers:-

i) Allow the instant application of the applicant along with interim relief.

ii) To direct the Respondents to grant the Applicant an attachment from her current posting at GMS Bariote, Zone Pancheri, to a suitable position within Zone Udhampur.

iii) To quash any existing orders or policies that restrict the transfer/attachment of regularized ReT teachers in a manner inconsistent with the CAT judgment in O.A. No. 61/161/2023 (Jyoti Gupta vs. UT of J&K & Others) and connected cases.

iv) To declare that the Applicant, as a regularized ReT teacher, is entitled to be treated at par with other General Line Teachers for all purposes, including transfers/attachments, in accordance with the CAT judgment and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

:: 3 ::

2. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the applicant appointed as an RET on 16 June 2014, and subsequently regularized as a General Line Teacher under SRO 635 on 16/06/2019 and is suffering from a chronic back condition, certified by a battery of doctors, requiring her to avoid long distances, especially travel to higher altitudes, bending, lifting, prolonged standing, and walking.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that Applicant's only son, Raghav Singh, has been suffering from epilepsy/seizure disorder since 2022 and her husband also a government employee, suffers from a seizure disorder for the past 13 years and requires ongoing medical treatment. He further submitted that applicant has previously submitted multiple representations seeking an attachment within Zone Udhampur, suggesting specific schools (Government Middle School, Housing Colony, Udhampur; Government Middle School, Jakheni Udhampur; Middle School Omalla, Udhampur; Middle School Jakhani, Udhampur), but these have not been considered.

5. Mr. Sudesh Magotra , Ld AAG has appeared for respondents and vehemently opposed the prayer of applicant.

6. Learned counsel for applicant has relied upon judgments Sakeena Akther VS State and Ors. - J&K (2011)], [State Th. Education Deptt. & Ors. VS Mohd. Iqbal Naik & Ors. - J&K (2011)], [Anju Sudan VS State of J&K - J&K (2018)], [Meena Sharma VS State Of Jammu

:: 4 ::

And Kashmir Supreme Court (2019)], [Naseer Ahmed VS State of J&K - J&K (2018)], [Madan Lal VS State of J&K - J&K (2018)] and judgment passed in O.A. No. 61/161/2023 by this tribunal.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that he would be satisfied if the OA is disposed of with the direction to respondents to treat this OA as representation and decide the case of applicant in light of above-mentioned judgments.

7. In view of the limited prayer, made by the learned counsel for the applicant, OA is disposed of with direction to respondents to treat this OA as representation and decide the same in light of judgment passed by this Tribunal in OA 161 of 2023 and pass a reasoned and speaking order with in 6 weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order. While deciding the representation of applicant, the respondent will consider her medical issues also sympathetically and till the representation will be decided by respondents, the applicant will be allowed to continue at her present place of posting.

8. No cost.

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Vs/