Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Rashmi Suryavanshi vs Nvs on 16 July, 2025

                                  1
Item No.23/C-4
                                                         O.A. No. 1570/2025



                 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                    PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

                            O.A. No. 1570/2025

                       This the 16th day of July, 2025

        Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
        Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

RASHMI SURYAVANSHI
KHASRA NO. 21 5-216, METRO PILLAR 536,
MUDKA, WEST DELHI - 11OO4I.

                                                                ...Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Rahul Bajaj with Ms. Sarah)

                              Versus

NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI
THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER
B- 15, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SECTOR 62, NOIDA,
UTTAR PRADESH - 201307
EMAIL : COMMIS SIONER.NVS @GOV.IN

                                                  ...Respondents


(By Advocate : Mr. S. Rajappa with Mr. R. Gowrishankar with Ms. G.
Divyashri)
                                     2
Item No.23/C-4
                                                        O.A. No. 1570/2025



                            ORDER (ORAL)

Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is currently working as a Junior Secretariat Assistant under the 100% Physically Handicapped category at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV), Ambala, Haryana. She has challenged Clause 3(c) of the Transfer Policy of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, 2021, as being contrary to the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It is submitted that any policy in contravention of a statutory enactment is non-est in law and deserves to be declared ultra vires the Act of 2016.

2. The applicant is a person with 100% visual impairment and is the sole breadwinner of her family, which includes her ailing mother and younger brother. Since the death of her father in July 2023, she has been the sole caretaker of her 55-year-old mother who suffers from paralysis and diabetes. The applicant herself is undergoing regular medical treatment in Delhi. By appointment letter dated 23.05.2023, the applicant was appointed as Junior Secretariat Assistant (JSA) under the PH category at JNV Ambala. Being a permanent resident of Delhi and fully visually impaired, she faced immense hardship relocating to Ambala. Nevertheless, she reported for duty on 08.06.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that after joining, she has faced several serious difficulties, particularly the life- threatening issue of snake infestations in and around her residential 3 Item No.23/C-4 O.A. No. 1570/2025 quarters and mess area. There have been multiple incidents where she narrowly escaped snake bites, and she is constantly dependent on the assistance of others to remain safe. It is submitted that such living conditions are not sustainable and pose a continuous danger to her life. Further, the market area is situated far from her quarters, making it extremely difficult for her to procure daily essentials. Being visually impaired, she cannot commute independently. Her mobility is severely restricted, affecting her ability to live with dignity. Additionally, the remote location of JNV Ambala and her unfamiliarity with the area renders her vulnerable to potential incidents of assault, eve-teasing, and other crimes.

4. In view of the above, the applicant submitted a representation dated 25.09.2023 to the Commissioner of NVS seeking a transfer to a JNV located in Delhi. She also wrote to the Principal, JNV Ambala. In response, vide letter dated 09.11.2023, the Deputy Commissioner of NVS stated that transfer requests are governed by the Transfer Policy 2021, specifically under Clauses 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and 4.5. It was stated that Clause 3(c) imposes a mandatory lock-in period of 2 years from the date of posting, even for priority category candidates, and therefore, the applicant's request could not be considered.

5. Subsequently, the applicant submitted another detailed representation dated 08.07.2024 (dispatched on 09.07.2024), requesting that her case be considered under Clause 9 of the Transfer Policy, which 4 Item No.23/C-4 O.A. No. 1570/2025 empowers the competent authority to relax the guidelines. She requested such relaxation in light of her 100% disability and humanitarian grounds.

6. It is further submitted that the applicant was also in the family way during this period and required family care and support. The applicant joined her post on 08.06.2023 and remained on duty until 02.02.2024. Thereafter:

 From 03.02.2024 to 30.06.2024, she was on sanctioned leave;  From 07.07.2024 to 17.01.2025, she was absent without sanctioned leave;
 From 20.01.2025 to 18.07.2025, she was on sanctioned maternity leave for 180 days.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Clause 3(c) of the Transfer Policy mandates a two-year lock-in period for all direct recruits on probation. Accordingly, transfer requests cannot be entertained until completion of this two-year period. It is contended that the applicant is falling short of two years, 326 days only.
8. It is argued that since the applicant was not continuously present on duty, the two-year period as per rules needs to be counted based on actual physical service.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5

Item No.23/C-4 O.A. No. 1570/2025

10. The only issue for adjudication is whether the period of 326 days of unauthorized leave can be included while calculating the two-year lock-in period.

11. Considering the facts and hardships narrated above, and also the Transfer Policy particularly Clause 9 thereof (the relaxation clause)--the respondents are hereby directed to consider the Applicant's case on humanitarian grounds. The respondents, however, submit that the transfer cycle for the year 2025 has already been completed. As such, although they are willing to consider her case on priority, she can be considered for transfer only in the next cycle, i.e., for the year 2026.

12. Given the above, we are of the opinion that the 326 days of unauthorized leave shall be treated as Extraordinary Leave (EOL). The said period shall, however, be counted towards the two-year lock-in period. Accordingly, the two-year lock-in period shall be deemed to expire in June 2025. However, since the transfer cycle for 2025 is already over, the Applicant shall be considered for transfer in the next cycle, i.e., in the year 2026 on priority basis. The Applicant shall be at liberty to avail of any other leave as per her entitlement w.e.f. 19.07.2025.

13. In view of the above, the present OA stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending MAs, if any, shall stand also disposed of.

(Dr. Sumeet Jerath)                         (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
      Member (A)                                 Member (J)
      /arti/