Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
Deepti Awatramani vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan on 31 May, 2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBU NAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Original Application No. 290 /0028212019
Date of Rese rved :13 . 04. 202L
Date of Pronouncement : 3l,0S,Qo{l
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. JASMINE AHMED, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MS. ARCHANA NIGAM, MEMBER (A)
Smt. Deepti Awataramani Dlo Late Shri Sunder Das aged 44 years
resident of 6-8-20 Pawanpuri South Extn. Bikaner (Raj), presently ,or,.O
on the post of PGT (Chemistry) at Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Bikaner.
Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Jog Singh, present through VC.
Versus
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan through the Commissioner, 1B
Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi - 110 016.
2. The Assistant commissioner (Est.II), Kendriya vidyalaya sangathan,
18 Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi - 110
016.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (R.O.), gZ,
Gandhi Nagar Marg, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur (Raj) 302015.
4. smt. sushila Yadav, PGT (chemistry), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
No. 1 Bikaner (Raj) 334001. Respondents
By Advocates: Mr. Avinash Acharya for R-1 to R-3 and
Mr. shashank ojha proxy for Mr. Rajeev purohit for R-4,
present through V.C.
$'
ORDER
This original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 19g5, praying the foilowing reriefs:
"rn view of above submissions it is most respectfutty this originat Apprication may kindty prayed that be artowed and ihe impugnea transfer order dated rg.fi:2orc quashed and set aside, rt is furthirianrexure A/r) may kindry be prayed that by an appropriate order or direction the respondents authorities directed to consider the case of the may Rindry be appticant on the ground of station seniority vis_it-vis therespondent No, 4, Any other rerief which this Hon,bre Tribunar in the case may also plea.se be awarded,, deems just & proper 2' Appricant, Deepti Awatramani presenry posted as pGT (chemistry), KV No' L, Bikaner, is aggrieved of her transfer vide impugned order dated 18'10'2019 (Annex.A/L) whereby, she has been posted to KV No. 2, Bikaner. The ground taken is that the respondent sangathan has reduced one section of class XI thereby declared a post of pGT (science) in KV No' 1 as surptus and consequently choice stations have been called from the employees. Respondent-sangathan thereafter invited preferences from the incumbents for annual transfer wherein, after scrutiny applicant scored 8 counts for dispracement and 2 counts for request transfer, which is clear from Annex. A/4. rt was stated that the respondent No. 4 is station senior than the appticant, accordingry respondent no 4 is riabre to be transferred under the instructions as she s 3 joined the present station on 25.06.2014 whereas, applicant joined on 05'05'2015' Applicant has categorically stated that vide Annex. 4/6, the Principal of the school submitted details of surplus staff wherein, the fact of applicant's ward studying in X and will appear in the Board exam is mentioned' Finding no option, applicant moved a representation vide Annex' A/z mentioning that she could not be transferred according to transfer guiderines, but, no heed has been paid to the same.
It was pleaded that she has to look after her old aged mother and since academic session is going on, therefore, she could not be disturbed in the mid of the session, It was prayed to stay the transfer order dated 18'10'2019 (Annex.A/l) qua her or in the alternative, its effect be subject to the decision of this o.A., however, no interim order was passed.
Reply has been filed by the official respondents as welt as by the private respondent No. 4 also. official respondents have stated that as per Article 7L of Education code for governance of KVs, the services of employees of KVSS are liable to be transferred to any other Kvs on short notice on organizational reasons and administrative exigencies. It is pleaded that appticant has been declared surplus on account of decrease of one Section of class XI (science) in KV No. 1, Bikaner and accordingly she was redeployed from KV No. 1 to KV No.
2 at the same station as per Para 5 (a) and Para 7 of the transfer guidelines effective from 1.4.2011 as amended from time to time and there is no illegality in the redeployment.
.-x\ rfih 4 Respondents have stated that as per the transfer guidelines para 5
(a) & 7(d), an emproyee whose chirdren are rikery to appear in x/fir Board Exams.in transfer year, wiil get exemption of one year. Here, since applicant's son is in class X, one sh.
Laxmi Narayan, pGT (chemistry) from KV No' 2, Bikaner has been disptaced to KV Jamnagar though having less counts than appticant and appricant was, thereafter, redeptoyed at KV 2 at the same station/city. As regards smt. yadav, sushira pGT (chemistry) of KV No. 1, Bikaner who is having -10 displacement counts and her child was atso to be appeared Board examination durin g z0L9-20 hence' she was not displaced. The displacement count of applicant is 02 and that of respondent No. 4 is -10, therefore, contention of appricant about respondent No. 4 who is her station senior, being her joining date 25.06.2014 prior to appricant, is not tenabte. In case, the dispracement counts of two incumbents are same, then onry, the date of joining has to be considered' Admittedly, applicant has 02 displacement counts whereas respondent No' 4 is having -10 dispracement counts thus, the order impugned was rightly issued keeping in view all the provisions on the issue.
In her reply, the private respondent vehemenily stated that for administrative transfers Displacement counts as enumerated in clause 6 of the Transfer Guidelines are considered and for request transfers, Transfer counts as enumerated in ctause 10 of the Guiderines are being considered' As regards the Redeployment of surptus Staff in excess of sanctioned strength at a location to other rocation against sanctioned eil <su 5 vacancies is concerned, administrative transfers as per clause 5 (a) of the transfer guidelines have to be considered. Disptacement counts for the purpose are accounted for on various heads, as enumerated in crause 6 of the Guidelines' she has also made it clear that duration at particular a station is one of the factors for accounting disptacement counts. The applicant has been posted vide the impugned order at a school which is only 3 kms. away from the present schoor. It is highrighted that as per Annexs' A/4 and A/6 applicant has got 02 and zero displacement counts and in the contrary, the respondent No, 4 has -10 (minus ten) displacement counts and, appricant having higher (positive) dispracement counts, has been transferred.
Besides that, Iike appricant, her son is arso appearing in Board examination and additionaily, her spouse is a Senior Teacher in Government School at Bikaner.
In the Additional Affidavit filed by the officiar respondents, a chart of counts has been tabulated showing that finar dispracement counts of applicant and respondent No. 4 for the year 2018 are Zero (appricant) and -L2 (respondent No.4) and simirarry for zoLg the dispracement counts in respect of applicant is 2 whereas, respondent No. 4 has -10 counts.
we have heard the rearned counsers for either side and gone through the paper book.
N '..A\n r. 'l \ \..
7 6None of the parties have clarified and placed on record anything showing the present status of applicant whether she has joined at the transferred place of posting or not, none of the parties have intimated this crucial and basic fact and secondly, while this application was moved in october ZoLg appricant's son was studying in crass X, by this time even october 2020 is over and we are in 2o2L (Aprir) when another Session would start shorUy, It is well settted law that transfer is an incidence of service and is an administrative discretion and interference by the Tribunar/courts with such transfer orders may be done in a very rare case. In several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex court like sHrLpr BosE vERsus srATE oF BrHAR (AIR 1991 SC 532), UNION OF INDIA VERSUS S. L. ABBAS (AIR 1993 SC 2444) ANd AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA VERSUS RAJEEV RATAN pANDEy IJT 2OO9 (10) sc
472), RAJENDBA SrrucH VERSUS STATE OF Up AND OTHERS [2010-1-SLR-63 2J, ithas been herd that in the transfer matter of a Government emproyee, scope of judiciat review is very limited' The Tribunal and High court should not interfere with an order of transfer righfly, be it at the interim stage or finar hearing. The courts cannot substitute their own decision as the courts and Tribunals cannot act as appellate authority in matters of transfer.
It has been settled that transfer is a part of the service conditionsof an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the court finds that either the order is mata fide or that the service rules prohibit such ,-dt^ transfer, or that the authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders. We do not find existence of any such grounds in the instant case. In this case it r:an safely be said that the transfer of applicant has been carried out in administrative exigencies as certain posts were declared surplus. In the instant case, applicant was declared surplus on decreasing one section of class XI (science) in KV No. 1 Bikaner and she was therefore shifted from KV no 1 to another KV no 2 in the same city i.e. Bikaner.
Before coming to the conclusion, it lvill be just to record/visit through the certain undisputed factual aspect of the matter which are helpful for resolving the issue in hand.
From another point also, this o.A. was filed in the month of october 2019 and the child of the applicant was to appear in the Class X Board Examination. Therefore, the contention of the applicant for not disturbing because of her son's examination, by this tinre, is over. It has also not been disputed by the applicant that the KV lNo. 2 where she has been transferred is only 3 Kms. away from KV _ 1.
It is also not disputed that respondr:nt No. 4 is having ress (negative) dis-placement counts than the applicant.
The only argument of the applicant being single parent and not awerrding her minus 50 counts for that cannot be termed as wrong on the part of the respondents as she could not place any decree of divorce before the respondents to enable them to award her minus 50 counts which wourd have herped her in
-'[t .-.*\.
'j--, getting more minus counts and could have marched over the respondent No. 4. Hence, the respondents could not be blamed for not awarding her minus 50 counts as a single mother.
It is arso not the case that the appricant has not been accommodated by the respondents as one shri Laxmi Narayan has been sent to Jamnagar from K.v 2 for accommo<lating the applicant at, K.V
2.though he was having better counts than the appricant.
Taking into account the factual position based on various legal judgments of Hon'bte the Apex court, we do not find any reason to interfere in the transfer order which sends the appricant onry 3 Kms. away in the same station/city. Rather, it is nothing but increase of titigation as the transferred prace is at onry 3 Kms. away from the originar one and can now be interpreted as wastage of Court's valuable time. In the result, in view of the factual and legal position as discussed above, the o.A. being devoid of merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(ARCHATVh)rurcau1 MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) mehta