Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Mrs Lalita Pande vs Kvs on 20 July, 2023
OA 63 of 2023 and 64 of 2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH
LUCKNOW
This the 20th day of July, 2023
Original Application No. 332/00063/2023
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member - J
Hon'ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member-A
Mrs. Vandana Verma, aged about 55 years, W/o Dr.
Ghanshyam, PRT at KV, Gomti Nagar (Ist Shift), Lucknow R/o 5/93,
Sector 5, Gomti Nagar Vistar, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 226010.
............ Applicant
By Advocate: Sri Alok Trivedi.
VERSUS
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan through the Commissioner, 18,
Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi- 110016.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Registered Office, Sector J, Aliganj, Lucknow.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, (Estt-2/3), Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan through the Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi- 110016.
4. The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gomti Nagar (Ist Shift),
Lucknow.
............ Respondents
By Advocate: Ms. Pushpila Bisht.
C.W.
Original Application No. 332/00064/2023
Mrs. Lalita Pande, aged about 55 years, W/o Dheeraj Pande,
PRT at KV Gomti Nagar (Ist Shift) Lucknow R/o D-1093, Polytechnic
Crossing, Indira Nagar, Lucknow- 226016
............ Applicant
By Advocate: Sri Alok Trivedi.
VERSUS
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan through the Commissioner, 18,
Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi- 110016.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Registered Office, Sector J, Aliganj, Lucknow.
Page 1 of 7
OA 63 of 2023 and 64 of 2023
3. The Assistant Commissioner, (Estt-2/3), Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan through the Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi- 110016.
4. The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gomti Nagar (Ist Shift),
Lucknow.
............ Respondents
By Advocate: Ms. Pushpila Bisht.
O R D E R (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- J Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsels for the respondents and perused the records.
2. In OA No. 63 of 2018, applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
(i) Set aside the orders dated 30.11.2022 & 20.12.2022, issued by the respondent no. 3, the order dated 16.09.2022 so far as relates to applicant as also the order dated 17.09.2022, issued by the respondent no. 3, as contained respectively in Annexure No. A-1, Annexure No. A-2 and Annexure No. A-3, to the present original application.
(ii) Issue appropriate directions to respondents to permit the applicant to resume her duties at KV Gomti Nagar (Ist Shift) Lucknow, or at nearby station within the State of U.P.
(iii) Issue any other order or direction in favour of the applicant as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and,
(iv) Award the costs of the application to the applicant.
3. In OA No. 64 of 2023, applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
(i) Set aside the orders dated 21.12.2022 & 20.12.2022, issued by the respondent no. 3, the order dated 16.09.2022 so far as relates to applicant as also the order dated 17.09.2022, issued by the respondent no. 3, as contained respectively in Annexure No. A-1, Annexure No. A-2 and Annexure No. A-3, to the present original application.
(ii) Issue appropriate directions to respondents to permit the applicant to resume her duties at KV Gomti Nagar (Ist Shift) Lucknow, or at nearby station within the State of U.P.
(iii) Issue any other order or direction in favour of the applicant as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and,
(iv) Award the costs of the application to the applicant.Page 2 of 7
OA 63 of 2023 and 64 of 2023
4. Since both the OAs relate to transfer order passed by respondents, hence, for the sake of convenience, both OAs are being decided by one and common order.
Facts of the OA No. 63 of 20235. It is the case of the applicant that applicant was initially appointed in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (hereinafter referred to as KVS) on the post of Primary Teacher (PRT) on 05.05.1993. On 16.09.2022, applicant has been transferred from KV, Gomtinagar, Lucknow to K.V., Bengdubi.
6. Applicant filed OA No.445/2022 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.11.2022. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the applicant moved a representation on 21.11.2022 before the competent authority, which was arbitrarily rejected vide order dated 30.11.2022.
Hence, this OA.
7. Respondents by filing their counter affidavit have, inter-alia, stated that transfer of the applicant had been made on administrative ground which is defined under Para 4 of the Transfer Guidelines of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 2021. Further stated that it is not a case of single teacher transfer rather several teachers have been transferred by transfer order, therefore there is no mala-fide in the transfer order. Moreso, the transfer order has not been passed violating any statutory rule as there is no rule which prohibits such transfer.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant filed rejoinder affidavit and reiterated the averments made in the OA. It is further alleged that the applicant has been transferred from U.P. Region to West Bengal Region, Bengdubi which is not the same region. The transfer of the applicant under the circumstances where she is having medical problem and husband is serving at Lucknow will not serve the purpose of public interest rather it will be prejudicial to the interest of the applicant as well as her family.
Page 3 of 7OA 63 of 2023 and 64 of 2023 Facts of the OA No. 64 of 2023
9. It is the case of the applicant is that she was initially appointed in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (hereinafter referred to as KVS) on the post of Primary Teacher (PRT) on 01.11.1993. On 16.09.2022, applicant has been transferred from KV, Gomtinagar, Lucknow to K.V., Farakka (NTPC).
10. Applicant filed OA No.446/2022 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.11.2022. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the applicant moved a representation 21.11.2022 before the competent authority, which was arbitrarily rejected vide order dated 21.12.2022.
11. Respondents by filing their counter affidavit have, inter-alia, stated that transfer of the applicant has been made on administrative ground which is provided under Para 4 of the Transfer Guidelines of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 2021. Further stated that it is not a case of single teacher transfer rather several teachers have been transferred by transfer order, therefore there is no mala-fide in the transfer order. Moreso, the transfer order has not been passed violating any statutory rule as there is no rule which prohibits such transfer.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant filed rejoinder affidavit and reiterated the averments made in the OA. It is further alleged that the applicant has been transferred from U.P. Region to West Bengal Resion, Farrkha which not the same region. The transfer of the applicant under the circumstances where she is having school going daughter and husband is serving at Kanpur will not serve the purpose of public interest rather it will be prejudicial to the interest of the applicant as well as her family.
13. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in the garb of rationalization and redistribution of existing staff the applicant Mrs. Vandana Verma has been transferred to KV, Gomtinagar to KV, Bengdubi and applicant Mrs. Lalita Pande has been transferred from KV, Gomtinagar, Lucknow to K.V., Farakka (NTPC). The transfer orders are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and have Page 4 of 7 OA 63 of 2023 and 64 of 2023 been passed in violation of transfer guidelines. Further submission is that the applicants cannot be transferred as the husbands of the applicants are State Government/Corporation employee. Hence, on spouse ground also, the impugned transfer order dated 16.09.2022 is liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there are contradictory judgments passed by different Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Learned counsel for the applicant specifically referred the judgment passed by Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal wherein transfer order has been quashed. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that if this Bench is having different view from one taken by Ahmedabad Bench, matter has to be referred to Larger Bench as per law of the Hon'ble Apex Court as laid down by K. Ajeet Babu & ors vs. Union of India & Ors. 1997 (6) SCC
473.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the aforesaid arguments and contended that applicants have been transferred from KV, Gomtinagar, Lucknow to K.V., Bengdubi and Farakka (NTPC) respectively and for the purpose of rationalization and redistribution of existing staff and to ensure the availability of at least 50% regular teaching staff in all K.V.S. across the country. Further submitted that neither there is any violation of statutory rules nor there is malafide in the matter, hence, OAs lack merits and are liable to be dismissed.
Further submitted that judgment passed by CAT, Ahmedabad Bench is against the settled law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, so, there is no need to refer the matter to Larger Bench.
15. Learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the following judgments:
(i) OA No. 2882/2022 (All India Kendriya Vidyalaya Teachers Association through its Assistant General Secretary vs. KVS & Ors.) of CAT, Principal Bench dated 27.03.2023.
(ii) OA No. 839/2022 - Anita Vishwakarma vs. KVS and ors.
of CAT, Allahabad Bench dated 09.03.2023.
(iii) OA No. 880/2022- Brij Bihari vs. KVS & ors. of CAT, Allahabad Bench dated 17.02.2023.Page 5 of 7
OA 63 of 2023 and 64 of 2023
(iv) Writ A No. 36766 of 2013- Dharmendra Kumar Saxena vs. State of UP & 3 Ors. dated 12.07.2013
16. In S.K. Nausad Rahaman & Others vs. Union of India & Others Civil Appeal No.1243 of 2022 connected with other Civil Appeals, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it." The relevant portion of the aforesaid authority is quoted below: -
"27. The above principle was cited with approval in Union of India v. SL Abbas 25 where the Court held that transfer is an incident of service:
"7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right."
17. Thus, the settled law on the point is that unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.
18. In view of the aforesaid legal position the facts of the case are being analyzed and evaluated.
19. The applicants Vandana Verma and Lalita Pande have been transferred on administrative grounds vide transfer order dated 16.09.2022 for the purpose of rationalization and redistribution of existing staff and to ensure the availability of at least 50% regular teaching staff in KVS all across the country. In the present matter neither there is any violation of any statutory provision nor there is mala fide. The spouse ground does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.
Page 6 of 7OA 63 of 2023 and 64 of 2023
20. The order passed by Ahmedabad Bench of CAT in OA No. 347 of 2022 and 12 other connected OAs is against the settled principal of law of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter so we are of the considered opinion that there is no need to refer the matter to the Larger Bench.
21. In view of the above, both the OAs lack merits and are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
MAs pending, if any, also stand disposed of.
There is no order as to costs.
Registry is directed place a copy of this judgment in OA No. 64 of 2023 also.
(Dr. Sanjiv Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member- A Member-J
JNS
Page 7 of 7