IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1645 of 2008 Decided on: September 11, 2008. Bidhi Chand Petitioner Vs. State pf H.P. and Others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R. K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. P.K. No.1 to 3 Sharma, Addl. A.G. and Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Writ petitioner is employed as Oriental Teacher in a Government School. He is physically handicapped having 45% permanent disability of left leg and 42% disability of left ear. He was appointed against a vacancy reserved for physically handicapped persons in the year 1982. Vide order dated 28th June, 2008, Annexure-P4, he was transferred from Govt. High School Kangoo-ka-Gehra to Govt. Middle School Neri U/C GSSS Langana. He was aggrieved by this order and filed an O.A. before the State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of that O.A. by giving direction to the respondent to treat the O.A. as representation by the petitioner. Now, the respondents Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… have dismissed the representation. Reasons given are that writ petitioner, having completed his tenure, is liable to be transferred and he does not have any right to get posted at a place of his choice. 2. Aggrieved by the order of rejection of his representation, Annexure-P6, petitioner has approached this Court. His main grievance is that since he is a physically handicapped person, he is entitled to remain at the present place of posting or in any case, he should be transferred to a place of his choice. He has placed reliance upon Guiding Principles for effecting transfers of State Government employees, Annexure- P7. One of the guidelines contained in Annexure-P7 is that in the case of employees with 60% physical disability and above, they should be posted at a station of their choice. In the present case, petitioner has admittedly completed his tenure. He is having permanent disability of 45% in respect of one of the legs and 42% of one of the ears. There is nothing on record suggesting that his total disability is 60% or above. Learned counsel says that the disabilities of leg and ear are required to be arithmetically added and the sum total thereof treated as percentage of disability and this way the disability comes to 87%. We do not agree with this submission because 45% disability of one of the lower limbs and 42% disability of one of the ears are not required to be added up, the way the learned counsel says. The two disabilities are required to be seen in relation to the entire body, for working out the total percentage …3… of disability. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), J. September 11, 2008 ( Surjit Singh ), J. (vs)