Mohd Musa vs EDUCATION UT OF LADAKH on 29 October 2026

ORDER

(Oral)

Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.)

Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicant seeks the following reliefs:

a. Direct the Respondents, particularly Respondents 3 and 4, attach the applicant to a nearby school keeping in his health conditions and also his mothers' critical condition; as already expressed in representations of the Applicant and in view of communication dated 20.07.2026 of the Chairman/CEC, LAHDC Kargil, by a reasoned and speaking order within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, in the light of Clauses 7, 10 and 14 of the Teachers Transfer Policy-2025 and the medical certificate dated 13.07.2026;

b. Direct the Respondents to transfer/adjust the Applicant to a school in and around Poyen, Kargil, or any station within the near periphery of his residence, on medical and humanitarian grounds, at par with officials transferred vide Annexure A-6;

c. Declare the inaction of the Respondents in keeping the Applicant's case in abeyance as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution;

d. Direct the Respondents to take into account the Applicant's service that he rendered for three consecutive years of service in the Winter Hostel for students;

e. Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Alongside the main reliefs, the applicants also seek the interim relief:

a. Attach the applicant to a nearby school keeping in his health conditions and also his mothers' critical condition; and

b. Not to assign the Applicant duties involving long-distance

ABHISHEK PUNIA

driving, walking, sports supervision or field activities, as advised by the District Medical Board.

c. That the operation of the direction contained in Order No. HSB-36/2026 dated 19.10.2026 be kept in abeyance and the Respondents be restrained from taking any coercive or adverse action against the Applicant on account of non- resumption of duty, pending consideration of the interim prayer.

3. The facts of the case are that the applicant is a permanent resident of Poyen District Kargil and is serving as a Master in the School Education Department, UT of Ladakh. He is presently posted at Government High School Bartoo, Sankoo. It is stated that the school of the applicant is more than 50 kilometers away from his residence, which is a difficult hilly terrain, and as stated, has been declared as a hardest station, even in terms of the Teachers Transfer Policy, 2025.

4. It is stated in the O.A. that the applicant is suffering from chronic multi-level degenerative lumbar disc disease with clinical symptoms exacerbated by prolonged walking and stair climbing, with MRI of the lumbar spine showing narrowing of the lateral recess at L5-S1 and canal stenosis at L4- L5, and symptomatic neurogenic claudication. The same is substantiated by a certificate issued by the Chairman (District Medical Board) Chief Medical Officer Kargil, UT of Ladakh.

ABHISHEK PUNIA

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already moved a representation before the competent authority seeking consideration of his transfer nearer to his hometown in view of his health conditions. He submits that in identical matters, cases have been considered by the respondents. To this effect, Annexures have been annexed with the O.A., where the competent authority has considered the health and other conditions in transferring the employees.

6. Admittedly, transfer is an exigency of service and the competent authority is the best judge to post an employee in the public and administrative interest, and an employee has no right to seek a posting of his choice. It is always left to the domain of the competent authority and Courts have a very limited power to interfere in such matters. To this effect, I am fortified by a catena of judgments:

1. Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357;

2. E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3;

3. State of U.P. vs. Siya Ram, (2004) 7 SCC 405;

4. State of U.P. and others vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402;

5. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and others, (2004) 12 SCC 299;

ABHISHEK PUNIA

6. Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and others, (2009) 2 SCC 592;

7. Union of India and others vs. Muralidhara Menon and another, (2009) 9 SCC 304;

8. B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (1986) 4 SCC 131;

9. Union of India and others vs. H.N. Kirtania, (1989) 3 SCC 445;

10. Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others vs. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659;

11. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Shri Bhagwan 2008

(8) SCC 574

12. Union of India v. Gh. Mohd. Sheikh 1998 SLJ JK 175

13. Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle and another vs. Rajendra CH. Bhattacharjee and others, (1995) 2 SCC 532;

14. State of M.P. and another vs. S.S. Kourav and others, (1995) 3 SCC 270;

15. Union of India and others vs. Ganesh Dass Singh, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 214;

16. Abani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa and others, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 169;

17. Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104;

18. Union of India and others vs. Janardhan Debanath and another, (2004) 4 SCC 245;

19. Rajendra Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2009) 15 SCC 178;

20. State of Haryana and others vs. Kashmir Singh and another, (2010) 13 SCC 306;

21. Anita Sharma vs. State of J&K 2019 Legal Eagle 489

22. Mohammad Yaqub v. State of J&K 1984 SLJ 167

23. Syed Hilal Ahmad & Ors. v. State 2015 (3) JKJ 398

ABHISHEK PUNIA

24. Namrata Verma vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2021 OnLine SC 3337

25. Ankit Yadu v. State of Chhatisgarh (WPS No. 6125/2026) Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur decided on 18.08.2026

7. Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mohammed Iqbal, submits that there is a Transfer Policy in vogue and the respondents can very well consider the case of the applicant for his transfer to a place nearer to his hometown, in view of his ailment which is substantiated by the certificate of the Board dated 13.07.2026. He further submits that the mother of the applicant is suffering from Carcinoma Lung (CA Lung), Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) with bilateral small kidneys, and Pulmonary Koch's (Tuberculosis), and is under treatment of Dr. Abhinav Sharma, Consultant Interventional Pulmonologist, Jammu. He further submits that the applicant is the only person responsible for her care. To this effect, averments are also made in the O.A. which are supported by a duly sworn affidavit of the applicant.

8. Undoubtedly, the competent authority is not powerless to consider the case of an employee, where an employee faces domestic issues/problems, be it health or any other family problem, and the competent authority can some time very well

ABHISHEK PUNIA

consider the representation of an employee in the given facts and circumstances, and where the competent authority feels that intervention is required and case deserves due consideration either on humanitarian grounds or any other plausible ground, the competent authority can very well address to the issue by favourably considering the case. However, in tune with the individual interest of the employee and the public and administrative interest. In this regard, I am fortified by a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case titled as, S. K. Nausad Rahaman & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266, wherein their lordships have held that preservation of family life is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Apart from, the obligation of service jurisprudence, the statutes and the law, there are human rights as well which are attached to an employee which also deserves to be protected by the competent authority.

9. Heard.

10. At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the O.A. is taken up for its disposal.

ABHISHEK PUNIA

11. The instant O.A. is disposed of by providing that the respondents shall consider the representation of the applicant reportedly filed before the competent authority on 17.07.2026, on its merits within a period of 04 (four) weeks positively by passing a speaking order. It is ordered that for four weeks, pending consideration and disposal of the representation, the respondents shall consider attaching the applicant nearer to his hometown, keeping in view his mother’s serious ailments, on humanitarian grounds. It is also ordered that this Court shall be kept aware of the disposal of the representation. The competent authority while considering the case of the applicant shall take a humanitarian view in the matter.

12. Accordingly, O.A. No. 1188/2026 is disposed of along with all connected M.A.s, if any.

13. No order as to costs.

(M. S. Latif) Member (Judl.)

Abhishek Punia Court Master 29.10.2026

ABHISHEK PUNIA