Back
: Bipolar Disorder Alone Can't Override Transfer Without Proof of 50% Mental Disability
In a ruling that underscores the limits of medical exemptions in government service transfers, the dismissed a by KVS Primary Teacher Shalu Pruthi, upholding her transfer from Delhi to Babugarh Cantt., Agra. A of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan ruled on , that her Bipolar Affective Disorder does not qualify under the Transfer Policy's medical disability clause absent certification of over 50% mental disability.
The decision, stemming from W.P.(C) 3022/2026, affirms the 's earlier dismissal and highlights that while empathy for health issues is key, policy thresholds must be met.
The Transfer Trail: From Sainik Vihar to Scrutiny
Shalu Pruthi joined KVS as a Primary Teacher (PRT) in and was posted at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sainik Vihar, Delhi. In , she faced transfer to Karaikal, Pondicherry, as part of a staff rationalization drive. Alongside others, she challenged it before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2789/, securing directions for representations.
The saga escalated to the in SLP (C) No. 24825/2023. On , the apex court allowed KVS to redo the process: teachers submitted three station preferences, with postings based on seniority and vacancies. Pruthi opted for Faridabad, Ghaziabad, and Noida but landed at Babugarh Cantt.—about 90 km from Faridabad—due to no vacancies in her choices.
Citing her bipolar disorder diagnosis since , need for ongoing treatment and family support, she sought modification via representations in . KVS rejected it on , deeming it outside policy bounds. The Tribunal upheld this in O.A. No. 4052/2024, prompting her High Court plea.
Petitioner's Cry for Accommodation vs. KVS's Policy Fortress
Pruthi's counsel argued the Tribunal ignored her medical reality, violating the
, and
. They claimed bipolar disorder fits
"any other disease with more than 50% mental disability"
under the
, Transfer Policy, urging "
" per
precedents like
Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India
(2023) and
Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan
(). They alleged arbitrariness, as others got relief, and vacancies existed in preferences.
KVS countered that transfers followed directives transparently. Pruthi got options but no vacancies; Babugarh was proximate. Her condition lacked 50% disability certification, excluding "Medical Disability Ground (MDG)." Counsel invoked S.C. Saxena v. Union of India (2006), Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993), and Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar (1991), stressing transfers as service incidents, no right to choice absent .
Parsing Policy and Precedents: No Arbitrary Override Allowed
The Bench dissected the policy's Annexure-I, listing severe conditions like cancer, renal failure, and
"any other disease with more than 50% mental disability."
Pruthi's certificates confirmed treatment and family needs but no
quantum.
"In the absence of such material, the conclusion... cannot be said to be
,"
the Court held.
It nodded to disability rights but required factual proof: principles from Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal demand sensitivity, yet not without policy fit. Transfers, incident to All-India liability service after 12+ Delhi years, prioritize "organizational interest." No evidence of differential treatment or vacancies proved discrimination.
As legal portals noted post-judgment, this reinforces that
"bipolar disorder alone doesn't qualify under medical disability clause without
,"
limiting judicial overreach in admin matters.
Key Observations
"Transfer is an and an employee holding a transferable post cannot claim, , to be posted at a particular place."
"The material placed on record by the Petitioner... does not establish that the Petitioner suffers from mental disability to the extent contemplated under the said policy."
"While the Petitioner has relied upon a medical certificate indicating that she is undergoing treatment for Bipolar Affective Disorder, the material on record does not establish that she suffers from a ..."
"The mere fact that the Petitioner was not accommodated at one of her preferred stations does not, by itself, render the transfer illegal or arbitrary."
No Relief: Petition Dismissed, Broader Echoes for Service Transfers
The Court found "no merit" in the petition:
"The Impugned Order... does not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error."
No stay or quashing; applications closed.
For KVS teachers and similar services, this sets a precedent: medical pleas need certified severity matching policy, not just treatment notes. It balances employee welfare against admin needs, reminding that
"problems and constraints of the employees will be subordinated"
to equity across stations. Future claimants must secure disability assessments upfront.
