Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Braj Pal Singh vs Kvs on 29 May, 2025
1
C-3/Item-60 OA-4155/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A./4155/2024
Reserved on: 06.05.2025
Pronounced on: 29.05.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Braj Pal Singh, aged 55 years
S/o Sh. Baljeet Singh
Working as TGT (Social Studies) in KVS
r/o Staff Quarter, K.V. Lansdawne (UK) ...Applicant
(Through Shri Yogesh Sharma, Advocate)
VERSUS
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through the Commissioner,
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi
2. The Assistant Commissioner (Estt.II/III),
KendriyaVidyalaya Sangathan,
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi
3. Ms. Arti Tomar,
Working as TGT (S. Studies)
K.V., Sector 12, Dwarka,
New Delhi-75 ...Respondents
(Through Shri S. Rajappa, Shri R. Gowrishankar and
Ms. G. Dhivyasri, Advocates)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):-
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the Applicant seeking quashing of the transfer 2 C-3/Item-60 OA-4155/2024 order dated 25.06.2024 by the Respondents vide which he has been transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya (KV), Lansdowne from KV, Sector 12, Dwarka.
2. Factual Matrix
2.1 The applicant was initially appointed as TGT with the respondents. By a transfer order dated 25.06.2024, he has been transferred from KV Sector 12 Dwarka, Delhi to KV Lansdowne on displacement basis. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has joined the new place of posting. However, aggrieved by the transfer order, the applicant has preferred the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of set-asiding the impugned order dt.25.6.2024 only in respect of the applicant and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for his posting at the same station at which the applicant was working before passing impugned order or in any nearby school in NCR by taking into account the medical situation of the applicant with consequential benefits.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation. 3
C-3/Item-60 OA-4155/2024
3. Notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter reply, to which the applicant has also filed rejoinder.
4. Submission by the learned counsel for the applicant 4.1 Mr. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to the transfer policy at page 26, specifically, para 2(II)(A)b) bearing the heading 'Transfer on Displacement During The Annual Transfer Process'. He submits that the applicant has ten displacement points and he could be transferred for accommodating a displacement transfer only. While in the present facts the applicant has been displaced to accommodate one Ms. Arti Tomar from Faridabad who has been accommodated against the post vacated by him. The precise contention has been made in para 4.4 of the O.A. and the same has not been contested by the respondents in the counter reply. Additionally, he makes the following submissions:-
i. The applicant has preferred a representation (page 20) wherein five choices of station have 4 C-3/Item-60 OA-4155/2024 been mentioned and ignoring all of them the applicant has been shifted to Lansdowne. ii. The applicant is suffering from 100% cardio blockage and is undergoing treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi, and that fact has been ignored by the respondents.
iii. Draws attention to the counter reply, specifically, para 4.5 and 4.6, wherein the respondents have contended that the applicant's request for modification of medical ground could not be accepted as the applicant did not fill the online transfer application under the medical ground category, he submits that once the applicant has been transferred, on account of the displacement accommodation, he could not have sought modification on medical grounds. Therefore, the contention of the respondents in the counter reply is misplaced.
iv. Placed reliance on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 973/2022 titled Smt. Ruppcy Langer Versus KVS dated 14.09.2022 (para 20) and the decision of another Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in 5 C-3/Item-60 OA-4155/2024 O.A. No. 2022/2010 dated 29.10.2010 (Page 9 of the O.A.) v. In the present circumstances the applicant is not eligible to seek transfer unless he completes five years in the present place of posting in terms of the Transfer Policy.
Therefore, the applicant will have to maintain his status at Lansdowne irrespective of his medical condition.
5. Submission by the learned counsel for the respondents 5.1 Mr. S. Rajappa, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the O.A. He makes the following submissions:-
i. The applicant has completed 10 years in the present place of posting and has been in New Delhi since the past 20 years and the applicant has to make way for those who are at hard stations.
ii. The displacement count of the applicant is more than 10, that is, 12 and he was eligible to be displaced.6
C-3/Item-60 OA-4155/2024 iii. In terms of the Transfer Policy specifically,
para 2(II)(A)b), admittedly the applicant has more than 10 points and under para 2(II)(A)b)(iii) of the policy displacement transfers shall be considered to accommodate employees falling under the category of PwD, MDG, DFP and LTR during the Annual Transfer process by displacing those employees who have completed ten years of stay at the desired station. The applicant did not apply under the medical category as has been explained in para 4.2 of the reply.
iv. By virtue of the provisions in the guidelines the applicant was obliged to submit an online transfer application 2024 under the medical condition category along with the medical documents which should have been considered by the respondents.
v. Drawing attention to reply to para 4.4 of the O.A., he submits that it has been specifically denied by the respondents that one Ms. Arti Tomar has been accommodated in place of the applicant in terms of the displacement points. 7
C-3/Item-60 OA-4155/2024 vi. Draws attention to the representation of the
applicant at page 20 of the O.A., and clarified that Ms. Arti Tomar had more than 20 displacement points and since she had made a request for transfer on medical grounds she was transferred from Faridabad to Delhi. vii. The transfer guidelines and executive instructions do not have statutory force and the applicant would have to establish a right to continue at a particular post irrespective of the fact that Ms. Arti Tomar was posted at the place by displacing the applicant. viii. In terms of the transfer policy, the applicant has an all India liability to serve and that during times of administrative exigency, the Commissioner, KVS, reserves the right to transfer any employee if (i) his/her stay has become prejudicial to the interest of the organization at any point of time and an employee transferred under this provision shall not be considered for coming back to the same station on transfer before completion of 5 years stay at the new station; and (ii) in administrative exigencies without having 8 C-3/Item-60 OA-4155/2024 regard to the displacement count of the employee.
ix. The Commissioner, KVS, has the power to consider applications on medical grounds for the employee themselves and their dependents and since, the present applicant chose not to make a request under the medical grounds, the applicant was shifted to Lansdowne. x. Relies upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1360/2025 dated 17.04.2025 (Para - 4, 10, 11, 14 and 16) to strengthen his arguments.
6. Rejoinder submission 6.1 In rejoinder, Mr. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant while drawing attention to page 26 of the O.A. submits that transfer on medical ground could be considered by displacing those who have competed ten years of stay at the desired station and the applicant will complete 10 years in the 2025 and he has been transferred in the year 2024 itself. He draws attention to the impugned order dated 25.06.2024 wherein it is mentioned that the transfer has been effected to in terms of 9 C-3/Item-60 OA-4155/2024 para II(A)(b) (i) and (ii) of the KVS Transfer Policy only and not in terms of sub point (iii) of the said para. He draws attention to the powers (Page 27) para 2(II)(B) wherein the Commissioner, KVS, is vested with the right to transfer an employee but only on certain grounds and that the transfer could be effected only against a clear vacancy even after completion of the annual general transfer. While in the present facts the situation is otherwise as the transfer has been effected to in terms of para 2(II)(A) of the Transfer Policy. He submits, it would not be correct by the respondents to argue that the transfer of the applicant could be considered by the respondents for the reason that the same cannot be done before completion of five years tenure.
7. Analysis 7.1 The Apex Court in catena of judgments has set out the circumstances under which the administrative action of transferring an employee can be subject to judicial Review. Even if the transfer order is violative of executive instructions such as transfer policy, the same should not be quashed on that ground alone. The government 10 C-3/Item-60 OA-4155/2024 employee has no vested right to be posted at a particular place of posting. In a transferable job, he/she is liable to be posted to anywhere the organization considers him/her suitable. Interference by Courts in the form of judicial review of this administrative action would amount to interference with day-to-day functioning of the Government and its subordinate authorities, as there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. 7.2 The Apex Court in Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Others vs State of Bihar and Others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 has observed:
"4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day- to-day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders." 11
C-3/Item-60 OA-4155/2024 7.3 In Public Services Tribunal Bar Association
Vs State of U.P., AIR 2003 SC 1115, it was held: -
"Transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative exigencies. Normally it is not to be interfered with by the courts. This Court consistently has been taken a view that orders of transfer should not be interfered with except in rare cases where the transfer has been made in a vindictive manner. From the above quoted decisions, it is evident that this Court has consistently been of the view that by way of interim order the order of suspension, termination, dismissal and transfer etc. should not be stayed during the pendency of the proceedings in the Court."
The transfer policies are in the form of executive guidelines. And hence, these have no statutory force. The aforementioned case laws affirm the prerogative of the government to transfer its employees to ant place of posting for administrative exigencies. The transfer guidelines are subservient to public interest." This view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in State of UP & Ors Vs Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 SC 2165; in Airport Authority of India Vs Rajeev Ratan Pandey and Ors, (2009) 8 SCC 377; and in Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors. vs. Durgesh Kuwar, 2020 SCC Online SC 774.
7.4 Personal hardships, family circumstances, education of children, health issues of self and dependant family members are matters for consideration for the competent authority but not for the Courts/ Tribunals to decide the matter as an Appellate Authority. The Apex Court in State of 12 C-3/Item-60 OA-4155/2024 Madhya Pradesh and Ors Vs Sri S.S. Kourav & Ors, 1995 AIR 1056 held that:
"It is further contended that in an unfortunate situation the respondent's wife committed suicide leaving three children and he would suffer extreme hardship if he has to work in the tribal area. This court cannot go into that question of relative hardship. It would be for the administration to consider the facts of the given case and mitigate the real hardship in the interest of good and efficient administration. If there is any such hardship, it would be open to make a representation to the government and it is for the government to consider and take appropriate decision in that behalf."
7.5 In summary, there is scope for judicial review of administrative action of the authorities in transfer matters if the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) The transfer order has been issued by an incompetent authority;
(ii) The transfer orders are arbitrary, smack of bias or mala fide;
(iii) There is violation of principle of natural justice; and
(iv) There is discrimination vis a vis the applicant in applying the transfer policy, without giving reason or assigning specific administrative exigency.
8. In the instant case, the applicant had served 6 years at the present place of posting and his 13 C-3/Item-60 OA-4155/2024 displacement count is 12. Hence, as per the policy of the respondents he is liable to be transferred. To be specific Clause 2 (II) A) (b) is reproduced here:
"2(II)(A)b Transfer on Displacement during the Annual Transfer Process:-
(i) An employee with at least 5 years stay at present station (irrespective of cadre) and having at least Ten (10) displacement count shall be liable for displacement transfer in decreasing order of displacement count."
8.1 The applicant has been working at the Delhi since 2.07.2015. By the relevant date of the transfer cycle, he has completed 6 years and hence, he has displacement count of 12. Accordingly, he was liable to be transferred out on administrative grounds as he has completed the tenure at the specific KVS at Delhi. Hence, by transferring the applicant from Delhi vide the impugned order to accommodate another employee on MDH count is not violative of the Transfer Policy.
8.2 The applicant has not alleged any bis, mala fide, lack of competency or violation of statutory provisions on the part of the respondents while effecting the transfer of the applicant from Delhi to Lansdowne. It is admitted that the applicant has been relieved from Delhi and he has joined at the new place of posting. 14
C-3/Item-60 OA-4155/2024 8.3 The only ground the learned counsel for the applicant relies on is that the respondents have not considered his grounds in his representation seeking retention at Delhi or in the alternative to consider the options given by the applicant on medical grounds. The learned counsel for the respondents has fairly averred that the applicant never applied under the medical grounds at the relevant point of time. There was provision seeking retention or transfer to choice stations on medical grounds as per Clause 2 (II) (A) (b)
(iii) and Clause 3 of the Transfer Policy of 2023. In his representations at Annexure-A2, he has mentioned his medical condition. Annexure-I attached to the OA at page 35 states the medical situation which will enable an employee seeking transfer or accommodation on "MDG "grounds. However, the applicant missed the bus for applying under the same MDG ground under the presumption that he is not liable to be transferred under the displacement adjustment conditions.
9. Conclusion:
9.1 In view of the above, we find none of the conditions stipulated vide various Apex court judgments cited above have been satisfied in the 15 C-3/Item-60 OA-4155/2024 instant case so as to interfere in the transfer and relieving order in respect of the present applicant.
However, the medical condition as mentioned by the applicant in his representation placed at Annexure -A2 is a permissible medical ground to consider his case for accommodation at preferable stations. Though he has missed the opportunity during the 2025 transfer Cycle, on humanitarian ground, his case deserves to be given a sympathetic consideration by the respondents. In view of this the present OA is disposed of with the following directions.
(i) The Applicant will make a fresh representation with the self-attested copies of relevant medical records to the respondents, furnishing five choice stations where vacancies are available within one week of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
(ii) The respondents on receipt of the representation as mentioned in (i) above shall consider the case of the applicant and pass appropriate speaking order in respect of the representation within 15 days from the 16 C-3/Item-60 OA-4155/2024 date of receipt of such representation.
No order as to costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Pratima K. Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
/dkm/