Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Parvati Patel vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Kvs) on 8 June, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi, Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 8 th OF JUNE, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 3020 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT. SNEHALATA PAWAR W/O SHRI MANISH PAWAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: POST
GRADUATE TEACHER (COMPUTER SCIENCE)
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA GUNA R/O KVS CAMPUS GUNA
DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN DUBEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN (HQ)
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AN ANUTONOMOUS
BODY UNDER MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 18, INSTITUTIONAL
AREA, SAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI
(DELHI)
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ESTT. 2/3) A
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN (HQ) (AN
AUTONOMOUS BODY UNDER MINISTRY OF
EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF INDI 18
INSTITUTIONAL AREA SHAHEED JEET SINGH
MARG, NEW DELHI (DELHI)
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA
VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN REGIONAL OFFICE
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA GUND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANISH KUMAR VERMA - ADVOCATE )
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVASHISH
MISHRA
Signing time: 6/12/2023
5:28:21 PM
2
MISC. PETITION No. 3027 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT. MAMTA SHRIVASTAVA W/O SHRI ANIL KUMAR
SHRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
WORKING AS PRIMARY TEACHER (PRT) KENDIRYA
VIDYALAYA NO 2, BHOPAL R/O 304 SIDDHI SAFFRON
CITY BLOCK RUBY SALLAIYA KOLAR ROAD BHOAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KENDIRYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN THROUGH
ITS COMMISSIONER 18 INSTITUTIONAL AREA
SAHEED JEET SINGH MARG NEW DELHI 110016
(DELHI)
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ESTT.) KENDRIYA
VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN 18 INSTITUTIONAL
AREA SAHEED JEET SINGH MARG NEW DELHI
110016 (DELHI)
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA
REGIONAL OFFICE NEAR MAIDA MILL BHOPAL
462011 (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANISH KUMAR VERMA - ADVOCATE)
MISC. PETITION No. 3028 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT. ANJANA GAUTAM W/O SHRI RAM NARAYAN
DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
WORKING AS PRIMARY TEACHER KENDRIYA
VIDYALAYA SPM HOSHANGABAD R/O ITI ROAD
INFRONT OF NEEW GALLAMANDI HOSHANGABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE )
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVASHISH
MISHRA
Signing time: 6/12/2023
5:28:21 PM
3
1. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN THROUGH
ITS COMMISSIONER 18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
SAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ESTT.) KENDRIYA
VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN 18 INSTITUTIONAL
AREA SAHEED JEET SINGH MARG NEW DELHI
110016 (DELHI)
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA
REGIONAL OFFICE NEAR MAIDA MILL BHOPAL
462011 (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANISH KUMAR VERMA - ADVOCATE )
MISC. PETITION No. 3029 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT. VANDANA SINGH W/O SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: WORKING AS
TGT (SOCIAL SCIENCE) KENDIRYA VIDYALAYA NO 2
BHOPAL R/O D- 70 TIRUPATI ABHINAV HOMES
AYODHYA BYPASS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN (KVS)
THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER 18
INSTITUTIONAL AREA SAHEED JEET SINGH
MARG NEW DELHI 110016 (DELHI)
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ESTT.) KENDRIYA
VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN 18 INSTITUTIONAL
AREA SAHEED JEET SINGH MARG NEW DELHI
110016 (DELHI)
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA
SANGATHAN REGIONAL OFFICE NEAR MAIDA
MILL BHOPAL 462011 (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANISH KUMAR VERMA - ADVOCATE)
MISC. PETITION No. 3030 of 2023
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVASHISH
MISHRA
Signing time: 6/12/2023
5:28:21 PM
4
BETWEEN:-
SMT. LALITA VISHWAKARMA W/O SHRI RAMESHWAR
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: WORKING AS PRIMARY TEACHER
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NO.2 BHOPAL R/O MIG-37
KOTRA SULTANABAD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN THROUGH
ITS COMMISSIONER 18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
SAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ESTT.) KENDRIYA
VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN 18 INSTITUTIONAL
AREA SAHEED JEET SINGH MARG NEW DELHI
110016 (DELHI)
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA
SANGATHAN REGIONAL OFFICE NEAR MAIDA
MILL BHOPAL 462011 (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANISH KUMAR VERMA - ADVOCATE )
MISC. PETITION No. 3031 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SM T. PARVATI PATEL W/O SHRI SHOBHA LAL PATEL
OCCUPATION: DOB 30.06.1972 WORKING AS TGT
(SOCIAL SCIENCE ) R/O B- 29 SIGNATURE CITY KATARA
HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN (KVS)
THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER 18
INSTITUTIONAL AREA SAHEED JEET SINGH
MARG NEW DELHI 110016 (DELHI)
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ESTT.) KENDRIYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVASHISH
MISHRA
Signing time: 6/12/2023
5:28:21 PM
5
VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN 18 INSTITUTIONAL
AREA SAHEED JEET SINGH MARG NEW DELHI
110016 (DELHI)
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA
SANGATHAN REGIONAL OFFICE NEAR MAIDA
MILL BHOPAL 462011 (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NO. 1 OPP.
CENTRAL INDIA FLOUR MIL, HOSHANGABAD
ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANISH KUMAR VERMA - ADVOCATE )
These petitions coming on for orders this day, JUSTICE SANJAY
DWIVEDI passed the following:
ORDER
Considering the limited relief claimed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur and the affidavit filed by the respondents in M.P. No.2950/ 2023, we are of the view that keeping these petitions pending would not serve any purpose, therefore, they are heard finally and decided concomitantly by this common order.
2. Being aggrieved by the common order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No.313/2023 and various connected matters, the petitioners have filed these petitions.
3. At the outset, Shri Manish Verma, Advocate for the respondents submits that in pursuance to order dated 25.02.2023 he has filed an affidavit/reply. The same is taken on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal while deciding the petitioners' earlier Original Applications along with other connected applications vide order dated 18.05.2023 disposed of the same with the following observation:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVASHISH MISHRA Signing time: 6/12/2023 5:28:21 PM 6"20. The fact also remains that the KVS academic session for 2022-23 is already over and the new session 2023-24 has begun. Right now summer vacations have started so it gives ample time and opportunity for KVS to consider individual representations and decide as per the direction issued by the Honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The suggestion of referring this Tribunal's order rejecting the transfer orders matter in previous round of litigation leading to dismissal of Bunch of OAS to the Principal Bench is rejected and the part that representations should be considered as per the order of the High Court is left to KVS.
21. The matter is remitted back to the respondents with a direction to consider afresh the representation of the applicants by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with directives issued by the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. vide its order dated 03.03.2023 within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order under intimation to the applicants. The interim relief granted during the pendency of these Original Applications is vacated in line with the observation made by the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. in some of the petitions of individual teachers that has also landed up before this Tribunal in the form of O.A. No.437/2023 (Aruna Tiwari v/s KVS)."
5. He submits that challenging the order passed by the Tribunal to the extent that in earlier round of litigation, while entertaining the Original Applications, granted interim protection on 19.09.2022 and finally the Tribunal directed the authority to decide the representations of the petitioners, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVASHISH MISHRA Signing time: 6/12/2023 5:28:21 PM 7 Division Bench of this Court disposed of the petitions with the following direction:-
"9. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the petitioners may make a representation individually to the respondents/Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on or before 06.03.2023. That, they are entitled to take all grounds in support of their case. The respondents should consider the representation individually and pass appropriate orders thereon on or before 20.03.2023. That, they shall also take into account the fresh manpower that is likely to be employed by them while considering the case of each one of the petitioners. Furthermore, even those petitioners who have already reported to the place of posting would also be permitted to make a representation to this effect. In case, the representation has already been furnished, the same does not prevent the petitioners from filing a fresh representation also. The challenge to the transfer guidelines, will be considered in an appropriate proceeding."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the Division Bench disposed of the aforesaid petitions but maintained the interim protection granted by the Tribunal till 10.04.2023. He further submits that the Tribunal while deciding the Original Applications has criticized the order passed by the respondent/authority rejecting the representations of the applicants saying that it is decided in stereotype manner without considering or detailing the pleas/grounds raised by the applicants in their representations and as such, the same cannot be termed as a valid and reasoned order. It is also observed by the Tribunal that the authority while rejecting the representations did not consider Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVASHISH MISHRA Signing time: 6/12/2023 5:28:21 PM 8 the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and as such, it is observed that the manner in which orders have been passed by the respondents, rejecting the representations is a clear violation of observation made by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and ultimately the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the authority for deciding the representations afresh but not granted any interim protection in favour of the applicants/petitioners. He further submits that when interim protection was maintained by the High Court on earlier occasion then the Tribunal ought to have granted the same especially under the circumstances when the Tribunal has found that the order passed by the respondent/authority was without following the direction issued by the High Court. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioners is claiming that the order of Tribunal is defective to the extent that the petitioners should also be granted interim protection even in the second round till their representations are decided by the respondent/authority.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and submitted that on first occasion the Division Bench on 25.05.2023 refused to grant any interim protection and directed the respondent/authority to file an affidavit. He has submitted that declined to grant any interim protection by the Division Bench at the first instance would amount to refusal of interim protection to the petitioners. According to him, in pursuance to the affidavit/reply filed by the respondents, no case for grant of any interim relief is made out in favour of the petitioners. He has therefore submitted that the petitions are without any substance and deserve to be dismissed. However, he has also drawn attention of this Court towards the order passed by the Division Bench in M.P. Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVASHISH MISHRA Signing time: 6/12/2023 5:28:21 PM 9 No.1282/2023 (Smt. Lavanya Chandanlal Vs. Union of India and Others) decided vide order dated 19.04.2023 wherein the Division Bench has refused to grant any interim protection in favour of the petitioner therein and, therefore, according to him, in the present case also no case of any interim protection is made out in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents by filing an affidavit tried to justify the transfer of the petitioners saying that it is made in accordance with the provisions of the transfer guidelines. In the affidavit, it is stated by the respondents that the order passed by the Tribunal not granting any interim protection is perfect and the same does not call for any interference. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon several judgments of Supreme Court wherein it is observed that the transfer is an incidence of service and interference in the same exercising writ jurisdiction is improper.
8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal while deciding the Original Applications, in very specific words has criticized the order passed by the respondent/authority deciding the representations in pursuance to the direction issued by the High Court in M.P. No.1262 of 2023 along with other connected petitions wherein the Division Bench of the High Court maintained the interim protection granted in favour of the petitioners by the Tribunal till 10.04.2023. The Tribunal has criticized the order of the respondent/authority and specifically held that the order cannot be said to be a legal and valid order and as such, remitted the matter for deciding the representations afresh by a reasoned order that too in pursuance to the direction of the High Court. However, we failed to understand as to why the Tribunal was not inclined to grant any interim protection to the petitioners.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVASHISH MISHRA Signing time: 6/12/2023 5:28:21 PM 109. However, if any direction is issued to the authority for deciding the representations by the Division Bench specifying the manner in which the representations were to be decided and ignoring the said fact, any order is passed by the authority, the same cannot be said to be proper and if the Tribunal has observed so then the Tribunal ought to have granted interim protection because issuing direction to the authority to decide the representations is not an empty formality. The authority must consider that the order passed by the Court has to be complied with in true perspective.
10. That apart, considering the fact that the Division Bench on 25.05.2023 directed the respondents to file an affidavit showing as to whether newly recruited 6414 Primary Teachers will or will not be deployed to the schools where deficiency of faculties exists, in the affidavit we do not find any such statement of the authority specifying therein that whether newly recruited Primary Teachers would be deployed in a school which are short from faculties. Thus, we can easily infer that the respondent/authority either not able to follow the directions issued by the Court or they are deliberately not following the same. Even otherwise, none of the Courts has observed anything on the merits of the case but they have protected the right of the employee to make a representation against the order of transfer and if that right is vested with the employee, it is obligatory for the authority to consider the representations and decide the same by a reasoned order. If the authority is of the opinion that the session is going to be started from 1st of July and till then petitioners shall not be compelled to join at the transferred place as has been submitted by the counsel for the respondents, we are surprised as to what prevented them to decide the representations in a proper manner prior to opening of the session.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVASHISH MISHRA Signing time: 6/12/2023 5:28:21 PM 1111. In view of the aforesaid, we are disposing of the petitions with the observation that direction issued by the Tribunal in its order dated 18.05.2023 be complied with by the respondent/authority in letter and spirit and the interim order of the Tribunal maintained by the Division Bench in M.P. No. 1282 of 2023 and other connected petitions in favour of the petitioners till 10.04.2023 shall be in force until their representations are decided.
12. With the aforesaid observations, all the petitions stand disposed of.
13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
14. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) (ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
V. JUDGE V. JUDGE
Devashish
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVASHISH
MISHRA
Signing time: 6/12/2023
5:28:21 PM