Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Sri Ramesh Chandra Behera vs Kvs on 10 March, 2026
1 O.A.No. 260/00213 of 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.Nos. 260/00213 of 2025
Reserved on 09.03.2026 Pronounced on 10.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Ramesh Chandra Behera, aged about 52
years, S/O- Karunakar Behera AT/PO-
Sabira Via-Soro Dist-Balasore, 756019
presently working as PGT Biology, PM Shri
KV Jharsuguda- 768201.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through its
Secretary, Ministry of Education,
Government of India, 122-C, Shastru
Bhawan, New-Delhi-110001.
2. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan, 18, Institutional Area, Saheed
Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi, 110016.
3. Deputy Commissioner In charge, Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office at
Pragati Vihar, Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar,
Dist- Khurda, 751017.
4. Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional office at
Pragati Vihar, Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar,
Dist- Khurda, 751017.
5. Dr. Shiharan Bose (Retired) Deputy
Commissioner & Consultant, Kendriya
RAVI KUMAR
2026.03.10
10:07:00 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00213 of 2025
Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office at
Pragati Vihar, Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar,
Dist- Khurda, 751017.
6. Sri Debakanta Moharana PGT (Bio) K.V
No.2, At/PO- Chhanapur, Via-Kuruda Dist-
Balasore, 756056.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. D.P.Dhalsamant, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. A.C.Deo, Counsel for UOI
Mr. H.K.Tripathy, Counsel KVS
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
Heard Ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.
2. It is the case of the applicant that he while working as PGT Biology, KV No-1 Balasore was declared surplus. He submitted application on 21.03.2025 for his adjustment/redeployment at KV-2, Balasore, Vyasa Nagar, or KV, Kendrapara or KV, Jagatsinghpur or KV-2, Angul. But, Official respondents redeployed at KV, Jharsuguda as PGT, Biology where he joined on 09.04.2025. According to the applicant, the said action of the respondents/KVS is highly RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:07:00 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00213 of 2025 illegal, arbitrary, and malafide exercise of power because the applicant was posted to KV, Jharsuguda whereas Dr. Shiharan Bose/ respondent No.5 was posted at KV-2 Balasore. It is further stated that the action of the respondents is discriminatory, which is violation of the mandate enshrined under the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, because in the case of one Ms. Haimabat Jena, PGT, Biology, KV No.2, Bhubaneswar, who was initially transferred to KV, Kendrapara (Barimul), subsequently, was modified vide order dated 22.04.2024 and posted to KV-4, Bhubaneswar as per para-1(A) of Part-1- A of Transfer Policy 2023 but his request was not acceded to. According to the applicant the criteria for identification of surplus staff shall be as decreasing order of the displacement counts of the employees at the School/station/region as per availability. The respondent No.6 and the applicant joined in earlier station in the same month and year, i.e. November, 2021 for which both are RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:07:00 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00213 of 2025 same displacement count six (6) upto to 30th June, 2025 [2x3 for each completed year] since wife of the applicant has been working in the same station, i.e. at Balasore, thus, the displacement count of the applicant comes to 6-6=0 as per para 4 of the transfer guidelines, 2023. As per guideline of para 2 I(A) of Part-1-A of transfer policy 2023, Ms. Priya Deval, TGT Hindi, KV-2 Balasore, Mr. Prasanta Kumar Singh, TGT Hindi, KV No.1, BBSR [1st shift], Ms. Asha, TGT Hindi, KV-2, Angul have been redeployed/transferred to another school of same station of KV No.1 Balasore, KV No.1 BBSR (second shift] and KV No.1 Angul respectively vide order dated 28.03.2025 issued by Resp. No.4 with the approval of Resp. No.3. Therefore, it would be apparent from the order dated 28.03.2025 that surplus staff has been redeployed to another school/station against the available vacancy whereas the applicant has been discriminated though the PGT biology post was available at KV-2 Balasore by violating the transfer policy and , respondent No.5 has been RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:07:00 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00213 of 2025 posted to KV-2 Balasore. It is stated that the injustice caused to the applicant in the decision making process of posting did not yield any result, at the hands of the authority, he has filed this OA praying to quash the order dated 28.03.2025 and to direct the respondents to redeploy him at KV-2, Balasore.
3. It is the case of the respondents that the applicant is under misconception in comparing the posting of Dr. Shiharan Bose/Resp.5 at KV-2, Balasore with his redeployment at KV, Jharsuguda since Dr. Sriharan Bose after his retirement from the post of Dy. Commissioner was engaged as Consultant KVS(HQ), New Delhi vide Office Order dated 19.02.2025 for six month w.e.f. 01.03.2025. According to the respondents, adjustment after being declared surplus or even transfer and posting of Teachers having transferable liability, exclusively falls within the power and domain of the executive authority to decide. Thus, the redeployment of the applicant at KV, Jharsuguda RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:07:00 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00213 of 2025 cannot be held to be illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory. It is stated that this being a matter of policy and transfer was effected in administrative exigency, judicial interference is not warranted and the OA is liable to be dismissed, they have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:
(a) Namrata Verma Vs State of U.P. & Ors, SLP(C) No. 36717/2017 dated 06.09.2021;
(b) C.Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka, S.P.No. 8634/2020 dated 08.09.2020;
(c) Dr. nagorao Shivaji Chavan Vs Dr. Sunil Purushottam Bhamre & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 10991/2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 25625/2018) dated 15.11.2018;
(d) UOI Vs Janardhan Debanath & Anr, AIR 2004 SC 1632;
(e) State of Haryana & Ors Vs Kashmir Singh & anr, (2010) 13 SCC 306
(f) Airport Authority of India Vs Rajiv Ratan Pandey & Ors, (2009) 8 SCC 337;
(g) Premalata Panda Vs UOI & Ors, ILR 2009 Cuttack page 492;
(h) State of A.P. Vs G.Venkataratnam, (2008) 9 SCC 345;
(i) State of M.P. Vs S.S.Kaurav, AIR 1995 SC 1056;
(j) State of Punjab Vs. Joginder Singh Dutta, AIR 1993 SC 2486;
(k) UOI Vs Ganesh Das Singh, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 214;
RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:07:00 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00213 of 2025
(l) Shanti Kumari Vs Regional Dy. Director Health Service, Patna, AIR 1981 SC 1577;
(m) B.Vardhan Rao Vs State of Karnataka, 1986 (4) SCC 624;
(n) Chief General Manager (Telecom), N.E.Telecom circle Vs Rajendra Cahndra Bhattacharjee, AIR 1995 SC 813;
(o) Md. Masood Ahmad Vs State of UP & Ors, 2007(8) SCC 150;
(p) Gujarat Electricity Board Vs Atma Ram Sungomal Poshani, 1989(2) SCC 602;
(q) UOI Vs H.N.Kirtania, AIR 1989 SC 1774;
(r) Shilpi Bose & Ors Vs State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532;
(s) UOI Vs S.L.Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444;
(t) State Bank of India Vs Anjan Sanyal & Ors, AIR 2001 SC 1748;
(u) KVS Vs Damodar Prasad Pandey, 2004 (12) SCC 299;
(v) Rajendra Roy Vs UOI, AIR 1993 SC 1236; (w) Premalata Panda Vs UOI, ILR 2009 Cuttack P-492;
(x) Tara Chand Khatri Vs Municipal Corporatin of Delhi and Ors, AIR 1977 SC 567;
(y) E.P.Royappa Vs State of Tamil Nadu & Anr, 1974(4) SCC 3;
(z) M.Sankaranarayana, IAS Vs State of Karnataka & Ors, AIR 1993 SC 763;
(aa) N.K.Singh Vs UOI, AIR 1995 SC 423; (ab) Kiran Gupta & Ors Vs State of UP & Ors, AIR 2000 SC 2399;
(ac) Netai Bag & Ors Vs State o fW.B & Ors, AIR 2000 SC 3313;
(ad) State of Punjab Vs B.K.Khanna & Ors, AIR 2001 SC 343;
RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:07:00 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00213 of 2025 (ae) State of UP Vs Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 SC 2165;
(af) Jasvinder Singh &Ors Vs State of J&K & Ors, (2003) 2 SCC 132;
(ag) First Land Acquisiton Collector & Ors Vs Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli & Ors, (2002) 4 SCC 160;
(ah) Sate of Bihar & Anr. Vs. P.P.Sharma, IAS and Anr. AIR 1992 SC 1260;
(ai) Dr. J.N.Banavalikar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 326;
(aj) All India State Bank Officers Federation & Ors Vs UOI & Ors, (1997) 9 SCC 151;
(ak) I.K.Mishra Vs UOI & Ors, AIR 1997 SC 3740;
(al) Federation of Railway Officers Association Vs UOI & Ors., (2003) 4 SCC 289;
4. On examination, we find that the respondents did not dispute the availability of the post of PGT Biology at KV-2, Balasore when the applicant was declared surplus in KV-1, Balasore, resultantly, adjusted at KV, Jharsuguda. Further, surplus of staff shall be in a descending order as per displacement counts of the employees at the School/station/region. The respondent No.6 and the applicant joined in earlier station in the same month and year, i.e. November, 2021 for which both are same RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:07:00 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00213 of 2025 displacement count six (6) upto to 30th June, 2025 [2x3 for each completed year] since wife of the applicant has been working in the same station, i.e. at Balasore, and, thus, the point of displacement of the applicant comes to 6-6=0 as per para 4 of the transfer guidelines, 2023 cannot be sidetracked. The decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents have no application insofar as facts of this case narrated above.
5. We find that, on 24.03.2025, applicant had represented for allowing him to continue in KV-1, Balasore since his son was to appear at class-XII Board Examination in Academic Session 2025-26 and his wife is also working in the same station as a teacher. As a model employer, a duty is cast upon them to look into the personal difficulties whenever an employee raises against the order of transfer or requesting for transfer of course without compromising the administrative requirement. As highlighted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in very many cases that procedural fairness is RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:07:00 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00213 of 2025 essential for arriving at correct decision and in the case titled A.K.Kraipak and others Vs. Union of India and Others, (1969) 2 SCC 262, the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court dwelling on the role of the principles of natural justice under our Constitution, observed that as every organization of the Govt. is controlled and regulated by the rule of law, there is a requirement to act justly and fairly and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The procedures which are considered inherent in the exercise of a quasi- judicial or administrative power are those which facilitate if not ensure a just and fair decision. We have gone through the decisions relied on by the respondents but we find that none of the decisions have any application to the case in hand.
6. Applicant submitted that the criteria for identification of surplus staff shall be as decreasing order of the displacement counts of the employees at the School/station/region as per availability. Further, RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:07:00 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00213 of 2025 respondent No.6 and the applicant joined in earlier station in the same month and year, i.e. November, 2021 for which both are same displacement count six (6) upto to 30th June, 2025 [2x3 for each completed year] since wife of the applicant has been working in the same station, i.e. at Balasore, thus, the displacement count of the applicant comes to 6-6=0 as per para 4 of the transfer guidelines, 2023. We also find that the authorities referred Transfer Policy, 2023 where there is certain procedure for determining surplus staff, which is based on vacancy component, but no rule has been placed before us for deployment of such surplus staff. However, since the representation of the applicant dated 22.04.2025 is still under consideration before the respondent No.3/Dy. Commissioner, KVS, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar, he is directed to consider the same taking into considerations the existing guidelines relating to adjustment of surplus employees and the points discussed above and intimate the RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:07:00 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/00213 of 2025 result thereof to the applicant in a well reasoned order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. In the result, the OA stands disposed of. MA, if any, pending also stands disposed of. Costs made easy.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member(Admn.) Member(Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.03.10
10:07:00 +05'30'