ORDER

(Oral)

1.Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.):- The applicants, two (02) in number, have filed the instant O.A. Since the cause of action and reliefs claimed by all the applicants are identical, the M.A. for joint application under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, is allowed.

2. By way of filing the instant O.A., the applicants seek the following reliefs:

a. Seeking Quashment of Order No.192 DSEK of 2026 Dated 08-05-2026 to the extent of transferring the applicants

b. Direct the respondents. To allow the petitioners to continue at. their present place of Posting i.e. GHSS Bandipora...Notwithstanding. the impugned order of transfer.

c. Direct the respondents, to ensure that the petitioners are posted strictly in accordance with the DOPT guidelines, and be exempted from Routine Exercise of Transfer/ Rotational Transfer.in terms of the DOPT Guidelines dated 2nd of Feb 2024.

d. Pass any other order or direction deemed fit in the interest of justice.

3. What emerges from the pleadings made in the O.A. is that the applicants are aggrieved of an order of transfer bearing No. 192 DSEK of 2026 dated 08.05.2026, as it relates to the applicants, by virtue of which the applicants have been transferred from Bandipora to Gurez at different places of posting.

4. The challenge has been thrown to the order of transfer, as it relates to them, on various grounds as have been urged in the O.A. It is urged that the applicants herein are suffering from benchmark disabilities and are protected under the provisions of Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the guidelines issued by the DoPT adopted by the Government of J&K.

5. It is stated that the applicant no. 1 is suffering from 45% locomotive disabilities and the applicant no. 2 is suffering from up to 40% of vision disability. To this effect, medical certificates issued by the Medical Board at»Bandipora.have been annexed which dated back to the year 2022.

6. Admittedly, Courts.do not. interfere.in orders of transfer where Courts have a very limited jurisdiction to interfere. It is always left to the competent authority to take a decision as regards posting of an employee in the administrative and public interest.

7. Perusal of the order impugned in totality reveals that the area of Gurez was never manned by any teachers or lecturers, as in an earlier O.A. also, where teachers were only seeking intervention of the Court regarding their transfers from Bandipora to Gurez, and the Court was constrained to sensitize the department that a day is not far when the area of Gurez will suffer from educational anarchy, as none of the teacher(s) are willing to work at Gurez.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Bhat Fayaz, submits that the applicants would face great health issues in case they are both sent to Gurez, (their birth place) to work in the Higher Secondary Schools.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court has been categoric, as regards the interference of the Courts in transfer.matters. To this effect, | am fortified by a catena of judgments:

1. Anita Sharma v. State of J&K 2019 Legal Eagle 489;

2. State of U.P. v. Siya Ram, (2004) 7.SCC 405;

3. Kanshi Ram Verma v. Municipal Committee, Mansa 1981 (2) SCC 72;

4. Jagdeep Singh v. State of J&K 2013 Legal Eagle JKHC 410;

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

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

7. Mohammad Yaqub v. State of J&K 1984 SLI 167;

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

9. Addisons Paints & Chemicals Limited v. Workmen AIR 2001 SC 436;

10. State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh Dhatt 1990 (2) SCC 661;

11. State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal AIR 2001 SC 1748;

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

13. B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, (1986) 4 SCC 131;

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

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

16. Union of India