SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Guj) 148

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :Abhilasha Kumari
DIPIKA KANTILAL SHUKLA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION 10232 of 1996
Decided On : 02/28/2006

Advocates Appeared: KETTY A.MEHTA, L.R.PUJARI

Headnote:

Civil law - Employment and Service - Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Dehorns policy/guidelines - Transfer to physically handicapped disability - Petitioners are physically handicapped persons who are aggrieved by orders passed by respondents transferring them beyond their place of residence which according to them is dehorns policy/guidelines framed by respondents for handicapped persons - Petitioner is a handicapped unmarried lady who is suffering from total retinal detachment in left eye and is having blindness in right eye - In year office of Industries commissioner had advertised post of Junior clerk reserved for handicapped persons and having applied for same petitioner was called for interview in reserved quota for handicapped persons time of appointment she had produced certificates of Civil surgeon showing total retinal detachment of her left eye and having blindness in right eye which shows her physical handicap - These certificates have been annexed as Annexure to writ petition - Held, Petitioners have categorically averred that persons who have been transferred in their places are not physically handicapped persons and petitioners in spite of being physically handicapped persons are unnecessarily being disturbed and sent away from places of their residence in violation of guidelines framed b respondents - It is not understood what administrative exigencies or public interests will be served if a handicapped person is transferred and in his or her place a perfectly normal and healthy person is substituted - Moreover stand taken by respondent in reply that since it is not convenient to have ladies working in office after office hours during Legislative assembly Session is totally absurd - It is an admitted fact that Session of legislative Assembly takes place in and not and that too only for short durations - Secondly it is respondents whom to retain beyond office hours if pressure of work so demand - Writ petitions allowed – (Para 10)

( 1 ) IN both these writ petitions, the petitioners are physically handicapped persons, who are aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondents, transferring them beyond their place of residence which, according to them is dehors the policy/guidelines framed by the respondents for handicapped persons.

( 2 ) THE brief facts, as narrated in the writ petitions, are that in Special Civil application No. 10232/96,the petitioner is a handicapped, unmarried lady, who is suffering from total retinal detachment in the left eye and is having 40% blindness in the right eye. In the year 1982, the office of the Industries commissioner had advertised the post of Junior clerk, reserved for handicapped persons and having applied for the same, the petitioner was called for interview in the reserved quota for handicapped persons. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Junior Clerk vide order dated 22. 9. 82. At the time of appointment she had produced the certificates of the Civil surgeon, Ahmedabad showing total retinal detachment of her left eye and having 40% blindness in the right eye, which shows her physical handicap. These certificates have been annexed as Annexure "b" and "c" to the writ petition. After having successfully completed the pre service training, the petitioner passed the departmental examination and continued to work as Junior Clerk in the office of the industries Commissioner i. e. respondent No. 2. In the year 1992,the office of the respondent no. 2 was shifted from Ahmedabad to Gandhinagar whereas the office of the District Industries commissioner, which was under the administrative control of the respondent No. 2, continued to remain at Ahmedabad. Since the petitioner was a handicapped person, unable to travel by bus from Ahmedabad to Gandhinagar, and as she was residing at Ahmedabad with her parents and brothers, she made a request to be kept at her native place. This request was made keeping in view the Government Circular dated 26. 8. 1975 and other relevant circulars issued thereafter, the purport of which was to keep all physically handicapped persons at their native place. The request of the petitioner was acceded to and she continued to remain in the office of the District Industries commissioner at Ahmedabad, However, all of a sudden she learned that vide order dated 13. 12. 96, passed by the Addl. Industries commissioner, the petitioner stood transferred as a Junior Clerk in the office of the industries Commissioner at Gandhinagar. According to the petitioner this order was never served upon her till the date of filing of the writ petition. However,she came to know regarding the same from the person who was transferred to Ahmedabad in her place, hence this petition.

( 3 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 10234/96 the petitioner is also a handicapped lady suffering from Residual Polyomyderus in the left lower limb, as a result of which she has 100% handicap as far as walking and climbing in the bus is concerned. It is her case that she applied in pursuance of an advertisement for the post of Junior Clerk reserved for handicapped persons, which was advertised by the office of Industries Commissioner (respondent No. 2) in the year 1979. The petitioner was called for an interview and selected and, thereafter, given appointment vide order dated 6. 10. 1980 as Junior Clerk in the office of Director of Weights and Measures under the control of respondent No. 2 at ahmedabad. At the time of appointment, petitioner had produced the relevant certificate of the Civil Surgeon, Ahmedabad regarding the handicap faced by her. Another certificate produced by her regarding her physical handicap has been given by Resident medical Officer of V. S. Hospital, Ahmedabad. These certificates have been annexed as annexure "c" and "d" to the writ petition. Thereafter, the office of the Director of weights and Measures and the Industries commissioner were bifurcated and the petitioner gave her option to remain as Junior Clerk in t












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top