Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Harish Kumar vs Govt. Of Nctd on 8 March, 2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A.No.4074/2018
Friday, this the 8th day of March 2019
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Ms. Aradhana Johri, Member (A)
Harish Kumar, Vice Principal
GBSS Vivek Vihar Phase II
s/o Shri Jagdish Chandra
aged 49 years, Group A
r/o B-216, Jhilmil Colony
Vivek Vihar, Delhi - 95
..Applicant
(Mr. S K Rungta, Senior Advocate and Mr. Shivankar Shukla,
Advocate with him)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariat,
Players Building, ITO, New Delhi
2. Director of Education
Directorate of Education
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat, Delhi
..Respondents
(Ms. Esha Majumdar, Advocate)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:
The applicant is working as Vice Principal in Government Boys Secondary School (GBSS), Vivek Vihar Phase II, administered by the Delhi Government. He is a visually impaired person. The Directorate of Education, the 2nd respondent herein, 2 O.A. No.4074/2018 has taken a decision on 21.08.2018 that to the effect as far as possible, one Principal / Vice Principal shall be posted in those schools where a visually impaired Vice Principal / Principal is working, for smooth running of the school administration. On 18.10.2018, an order of transfer was passed, whereby as many as 17 Vice Principals in the schools were transferred to various places. The applicant, who was working in GBSS, Vivek Vihar, was transferred to SBV, Jhilmil Colony.
2. This O.A. is filed challenging the decision contained in proceeding dated 21.08.2018 as well as order dated 18.10.2018, insofar as it relates to the applicant.
3. It is stated that the policy decision has the effect of defeating the rights of visually impaired persons, inasmuch as they are deprived of the right to function as Heads of Schools. As regards the transfer, it is stated that it is a measure to deny the applicant, of his right to be Head of School, and with a definite objective, he has been transferred to a school where he would function as Vice Principal under the Principal. Other grounds are also urged.
4. The respondents filed counter affidavit, stating that the policy decision regarding posting of Principals and Vice Principals was taken to ensure smooth functioning of the school administration. It is stated that the rights of the visually impaired 3 O.A. No.4074/2018 persons are kept intact and there is no attempt to defeat such rights at all.
5. As regards transfer of the applicant, it is stated that in the school, where the applicant was functioning, an incident of corporal punishment has taken place, and that it resulted in initiation of proceedings in a court of law, and with a view to avoid such incidents, the applicant has been transferred to a place where the Principal is not visually impaired. It is further stated that the school at Jhilmil is in the immediate neighbourhood of the applicant's residence.
6. We heard Mr. S K Rungta, learned senior counsel for applicant and Ms. Esha Majumdar, learned counsel for respondents in detail.
7. Two issues are raised in this O.A. First is about the policy decision taken by the respondents, and the second is about transfer of the applicant. The decision taken on 21.08.2018 reads as under:-
"to post as far as possible, one Principal/Vice Principal in those schools where a visually impaired Vice Principal/ Principal is posted, for smooth functioning of school administration."
8. The purpose appears to be ensure that if one of the functionaries is a visually impaired, the other is a sighted one, so that the functioning of the administration is not hampered. 4 O.A. No.4074/2018 Nowhere in the decision, it is indicated that the rights of a visually impaired person, who is working as Principal, are defeated or taken away. Such person continues to function as Principal but would be assisted by a Vice Principal, who is a sighted person. Similarly, it is ensured that if the Principal is a sighted one, a visually impaired one is posted as Vice Principal. The duties and functions of the Vice Principal remain intact. We do not find anything objectionable in the decision contained in order dated 21.08.2018, nor it has any effect of taking away the rights of visually impaired persons. We reiterate that if by virtue of seniority, a visually impaired person is appointed as Principal or Vice Principal, he shall continue to exercise his function, without any impediment.
9. Coming to the question of transfer of the applicant, it is not a solitary instance, and as many as 17 Vice Principals are transferred to various places within the city of Delhi. The reason for transferring the applicant is said to be an incident of corporal punishment to a child, that resulted in initiation of proceedings, under the relevant enactment. Naturally that impinged on the reputation of school, apart from adversely affecting the right of the children. It was almost as a precautionary measure, and not as a reflection on the applicant that the transfer was made. Added to that, no physical inconvenience is caused to the applicant on 5 O.A. No.4074/2018 account of his transfer. On the other hand, the applicant has been transferred to a school, which is nearer to his residence.
10. With these observations, we dispose of this O.A.
11. Before parting with the case, we make it clear that none of the observations made by us shall be construed as giving an indication that the visually impaired persons cannot be entrusted with the administrative functions, either in isolation or in combination.
There shall be no order as to costs.
( Aradhana Johri ) ( Justice L. Narasimha Reddy ) Member (A) Chairman March 8, 2019 /sunil/