Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Anita Vishwakarma vs Kvs on 9 May, 2023
O.A./839/2022
(Reserved on 15.04.2023)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 9th day of May 2023
Hon'ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
Original Application No.330/839/2022
Anita Vishwakarma wife of Rajesh Kumar Sharma Presently working as
TGT(Math), KV No. 3 AFS Chakeri, Kanpur.
. . .Applicant
Applicant in Person
VERSUS
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet
Singh Marg, New Delhi-16, through its Chairman.
2. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-16.
3. Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya 18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi - 16.
4. Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3 AFS Chakeri, Kanpur Nagar.
5. Principal, Kendriyalaya Chikodi, Karnatka.
. . .Respondents
By Advocate : Shri Rishi Kumar
ORDER
( By Hon'ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member(Administrative) This Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking relief to quash the impugned order dated 13.09.2022 related to the applicant (placed at serial no. 226 in the transfer list) and orders dated 12.09.2022 and 14.09.2022 whereby the applicant is relieved from Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3, AFS Chakeri, Kanpur Page 1 of 14 O.A./839/2022 w.e.f 14.09.2022. Prayer has also been made to issue a direction which this Tribunal may deem fit and proper and also award costs.
2. OA was initially filed on 16.09.2022 and later amended vide memo dated 12.11.2022.
3. The brief fact of the case (as per amended memo) is that the respondents issued a transfer order dated 13.09.2022 having the name of the applicant at serial no. 226 whereby she was transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3, AFS Chakeri, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Chikodi, Karnataka to the great prejudice of applicant without following any transfer guidelines or policy framed by the respondents themselves. The applicant gave representations dated 13.09.2022 and 16.10.2022 requesting for cancelling/modifying her transfer order.
4. The applicant states that her spouse is working in State Government Medical Health Department as Medical Officer and posted at the Station, Kanpur Nagar and her only son namely Akshat Sharma who is 10 years old has been suffering from Epilepsy since 2016 and under treatment from SGPGI, Lucknow. He requires strict timely sleeping, eating and medication which is twice a day as per the doctor's prescription and it required both the parents to be together. Furthermore, it is argued that she could not take him to around 2000 kms away from Kanpur that takes at least 30 hours. Since she is posted 2000 kilometers away from her present place of posting as well as from her hometown, it will create great difficulties to her family life as well as her son's treatment. She pointed out that the respondents issued notification order in mechanical manner without considering problems of the applicant and her displacement count which is in violation of the Rule of transfer policy 2021 KVS as well as DoPT guidelines.
5. The applicant further states that on 12.09.2022 the respondents issued a notice whereby they have kept in abeyance the provisions of Para 6 of the transfer guidelines 2021 and suspended the annual transfer process for Academic Session 2022-2023. She further contends that the transfer guidelines are passed and approved by Board of governors of KVS and any amendment if needed is also to be passed and approved by Board of Governors but the meeting of Board of Governors held on 14.02.2020, no such amendment was approved or any other meeting also nothing of the like Page 2 of 14 O.A./839/2022 was approved. Hence, impugned notification dated 12.09.2022 was also not approved by the Chairman, KVS as required in Para 13 of the Transfer Guidelines 2021.
6. The applicant further contends that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Director of School Education vs. O. Karuppa Thevan, 1944 Supp (2) SCC 666, held that the employee should not be transferred during the mid- academic session unless administrative exigency requires. There is no such proven administrative exigency and if it was a single case of transfer but the matter as against the transfer of about 2000 teachers in mid academic session is perverse. It is further contended that the same order records that on administrative ground for the purposes of rationalization and redistribution of existing teaching staff and in order to ensure that at least 50 per cent of regular teaching staff are available in the KVS across the country, the respondents vide impugned order under the garb of administrative exigencies transferred 545 TGT Teacher en-block without following any transfer guidelines and the policy framed by the respondents themselves. Further, she argues that the said order does no show that by whose approval, the said guidelines are issued. The applicant further avers that the said order is made with malafide intention to harass her as the respondents have not shown what is the administrative exigencies. Her representations were also not considered and the respondents relieved her.
7. The applicant further states that Transfer Guidelines, 2021 for teachers up to TGT for KVS were formulated with a clear objective to try to maintain equitable distribution of its employees across allocations to ensure efficient functioning of the organization and optimize job satisfaction amongst employees. All employees are liable to be transferred anywhere in India at any point of time and transfer to a desired location can't be claimed as a matter of right. While affecting transfers, the organizational interest shall be given uppermost consideration and that the problems and constraints of employee shall remain subservient. The said guidelines were formulated to maintain transparency and to avoid elements of arbitrariness and discrimination.
8. It is further argued that the said order is bad in law as under the garb of administrative exigency or rationalization, it transfers the applicant to a far away place despite the applicant having a low displacement count of -2.
Page 3 of 14O.A./839/2022 Hence, the said impugned order is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution being arbitrary and is hit by both arbitrariness and discrimination. As no objective criteria has been followed and she gives many examples of schools having different percentage of employees particularly TGT Maths, she quotes the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, Bhagwati, J. showing that equality is antithetical to arbitrariness and she emphatically says that the said order is bad in law and the same are in violation of clause 6,7 and 9 of Transfer Policy, 2021 and the said order is also violative of the New Education Policy. Para 5.3 of New Education Policy 2020 says that " the harmful practice of excessive teacher transfers will be halted, so that students have continuity in their role models and educational environments". She further alleges that keeping para 6 in abeyance the respondents postponed the transfer order of 63 teachers including PGT, TGT and PRT vide their order dated 23.09.2022 to join their previous schools on the basis of their representations but the same benefit was not given to the applicant and their so called rationalization and redistribution of regular teaching staff for making 50% staff is misleading as at least 2 schools in the same region (Lucknow) as of applicant has 0% teaching staff of TGT Maths but no regular teaching staff has been transferred to those schools to make it 50% and she further avers that at least 5 schools in Bengaluru region (where the applicant has been transferred) having more than 50% or even having 100% teaching staff as per post/subject and having more than 14 years of stay in the same station, yet not transferred, which clearly shows pick and choose policy with mala fide intention against the applicant. She further states that the said order is violation of DoPT rules and guidelines dated 30.09.2022 which shows that in view of the utmost importance attach to the enhancement of women status in all walks of life and to enable them to lead a normal family life and also to ensure the education and welfare of their children, guidelines of posting of husband and wife together who are in government sector have not been followed in letter and spirit. She further quotes CAT Bench orders in O.A. No. 861/2022, O.A. No. 381/2022 and O.A. No. 391/2022 where Interim Reliefs were granted. Based on these grounds, the applicant seeks to allow her application and to quash the impugned order.
9. Counsel for the respondents draws my attention towards the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and argues that the said Page 4 of 14 O.A./839/2022 transfer orders are passed in administrative exigency and taking into consideration the welfare of the students who are the future of our country and thus, in public interest as the paramount consideration. He further argues that there are catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the transfer matters in which it has been held that transfer is not only incident of service but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. When and where, an employee should be posted, are governed by the exigencies of service and executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers or posting, and judicial review has a very limited scope with regard to the transfer order. Generally the courts should not interfere with the transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made on the ground of mala fide intention or in violation of mandatory statutory rule which prohibits transfers.
10. It is further argued that as there is a long chain of transfers, there is no malafide in the transfer order and applicant has not shown any cause of malafide as no individual is identified in the Original Application to which it shows malafide intention and there is no violation of any mandatory statutory rule in the transfer orders. It is necessary to state that the service conditions of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan are governed by the Education Code of KVS Vidyalayas in vogue and it is regulated by Article 71 of the Education Code of the KVS which has basic principles:-
1. All employees of the KVS are liable to be transferred and posted anywhere in India, at any time, and for any period, as requirements of public service and of the Sangathan may dictate. Transfers and postings are a right of the Sangathan which it would endeavor to exervise in the best interest of the students, with due regard to the principles of equity and transparency vis-à-vis its employees.
2. These guidelines regarding transfers are meant essential for the internal use of the Sangathan and do not vest any employee with any right."
And guidelines of teachers' transfer are issued time to time in accordance with the Transfer Policy provided under Article 71 of the said guidelines are issued by competent Authority to give transparency in the transfer order but the said Page 5 of 14 O.A./839/2022 guidelines do not vest any right to the employees and are only in the nature of general guidelines and clause 7 (Method for Administrative Transfer) at para
(f) mentions following:-
Provided further, an employee can be transferred to a location in administrative exigencies without having any regard to the displacement count of the employee.
And the present order is made on administrative ground which is clearly mentioned in the transfer order that teachers are transferred for the purpose of rationalization and redistribution of existing teaching staff and in order to ensure that at least 50% regular teaching staffs are available in the school across the country. Hence, they vehemently denied that there was no administrative exigency in the transfer order.
11. They further say that who should be transferred where and in what manner is for the appropriate authority to decide and that the Courts and Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the employees to 'proper place'. The above said preposition are well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Union of India and others vs. S.L.Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357. They further state that transfer guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the employees to approach the higher authorities for redressal but cannot have the consequences of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular employee of KVS to any place in public interest and is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments as ruled in State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Lal and Ors. (2004)11 SCC 402 by the Apex Court.
12. They further emphatically aver that even if, the order of transfer is made in violation of administrative guidelines, the same cannot be interfered with as such guidelines do not confer any legally enforceable right unless as submitted above the same is shown to have been vitiated by mala fides or made in violation of statutory provision. And the Sangathan is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees as ruled by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Lal Page 6 of 14 O.A./839/2022 and Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 402. They further emphatically say that the power of transfer of the employee has been exercised honestly, bonafidely and reasonably as this power has been exercised in public interest and judicial review of such order cannot be exercised unless the order of transfer is made on irrelevant consideration or it is malafide in nature. The judicial scrutiny of such orders is limited as time and again rule by Hon'ble Supreme Court in following judgements:-
(i) B.Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (1986) 4 SCC 132;
(ii) Union of India and others vs. H.N.Kiratania, (1989) 3 SCC 445;
(iii) Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others vs. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659;
(iv) Union of India and others vs. S.L.Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357;
(v) Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle and another vs. Rajendra CH. Bhattacharjee and others, (1995) 2 SSCC 532;
(vi) State of M.P. and another vs. S.S. Kourav and others, (1995) 3 SCC 270;
(vii) National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan and Shiv Prakash, (2001) 8 SCC 574;
(viii) Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104;
(ix) Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and another, (2004) 4 SCC 245;
(x) State of U.P. vs. Siya Ram, (2004) 7 SCC 405; (xi) State of U.P. and others vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004)11 SCC 402; (xii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and others. (2004) 12 SCC 299; (xiii) Union of India and others vs. Muralidhara Menon and another, (2009) 9 SCC 304; (xiv) Rajendra Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Prdesh and others, (2009) 15 SCC 178; and (xv) State of Haryana and others vs. Kashmir Singh and another, (2010) 13 SCC 306
The above judgements are summarized below as under :-
i. Transfer is a condition of service.
ii. It does not adversely affect the status or emoluments or seniority of the employee Page 7 of 14 O.A./839/2022 iii. The employee has no vested right to get a posting at a particular place or choose to serve at a particular place for a particular time.
iv. It is within the exclusive domain of the employer to determine as to what place and for how long the sevices of a particular employee are required.
v. Transfer order should be passed in public interest or administrative exigency, and not arbitrarily or for extraneous consideration or for victimization of the employee nor it should be passed under political pressure.
vi. There is a very little scope of judicial review by Courts/Tribunals against the transfer order and the same is restricted only if the transfer order is found to be in contravention of the statutory Rules or malafides are established.
vii. In case of malafides, the employee has to make specific averments and should prove the same by adducing impeccable evidence.
Viii. The person against whom allegations of malafide is made should be impleaded as a party by name.
ix. Transfer policy or guidelines issued by the State or employer does not have any statutory force as it merely provides for guidelines for the understanding of the Department personnel.
x. The Court does not have the power to annul the transfer order only on the ground that it will cause personal inconvenience to the employee, his family members and children, as consideration of these views fall within the exclusive domain of the employer.
Xi If the transfer order is made in mid-academic session of the children of the employee, the Court/Tribunal cannot interfere. It is for the employer to consider such a personal grievance.
In view of the above ratio of judgments of the Apex Court the respondents emphatically show that personal inconvenience and hardship of an employee are within the consideration which lies only within the purview of the administrator and it is always open to the aggrieved party to make representation to the administrator and KVS has taken a decision in public interest. The transfer of the Applicant is necessitated in the interest of the organization for maintaining equitable distribution of the employees across all locations to ensure efficient functioning of the organization and optimize job satisfaction amongst employees and as all employee are liable to be transferred anywhere in India at any point of time and transfer to a desired location cannot be claimed as a matter of right and while effecting transfers the organizational interest is the uppermost consideration and the problems and constraints of the employees is subservient. Hence, transfer of the applicant is bonafide. Hence, they request that the OA should be dismissed.Page 8 of 14
O.A./839/2022
13. The case came up for final hearing on 15.04.2023. Ms. Anita Vishwakarma, applicant was present in person and argued her case. Shri Rishi Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents was also present and heard.
14. The applicant filed written argument and the respondents were also given time to file the same but they have not done so.
15. This court while hearing the case on 20.09.2022 on the interim prayer observed the following:-
11. It is also evident that applicant has not yet joined at his transferred place. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.C. Saxena vs. Union of India and others reported in (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 583 has held as under:- "A government servant cannot disobey the transfer order by not reporting at the new place of posting and going to court to ventilate his grievance. It is his duty to first report for work where he is transferred and then make a representation after his joining at the transferred place, as to what may be his personal problems. Such tendency of not reporting at new place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed. Conceding to such an argument will lead to a great indiscipline in public service. We are unable to accept such arguments."
12. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ A No. 34634/2015 decided in June 2015, Sachidanand Pandey Vs. Managing Director, U.P. State Bridge Corporation, while relying on several judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, has held as under:- "A Govt. Servant should first join the place where he is transferred and after joining the transfer place, he may make a representation to the higher authorities to ventilate his grievance."
13. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that impugned transfer order is malafide or illegal. Considering all the facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that no interference is warranted in the impugned transfer order at this stage. Since the applicant has already submitted a detailed representation dated 14.9.2022 to the competent authority, it is expected from the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the applicant
16. I have gone carefully through the entire records and the rival contentions.
Page 9 of 14O.A./839/2022
17. From the records it is evident that the basic fact of the case that the applicant was transferred vide order dated 13.09.2022 (at serial no. 226 in the transfer list) from KVS no. 3 AFS Chakeri, Kanpur, UP to KVS Chikodi, Karnataka is not denied. Although, she has challenged the said order and in her pleadings she also states that suspension of guidelines in para 6 of the transfer order is illegitimate but the said suspension of the guideline per se is not challenged. The applicant in her support basically comes out with following (i) the applicant's husband is Medical Officer with the State Government of Uttar Pradesh ; (ii) her 10 years old son is undergoing treatment for epilepsy since 2016 in SGPGI, Lucknow, (iii) Transfer Guidelines as well as DoPT Circular stipulates that the husband wife should be posted together as far as possible and (iv) the transfer should be based on the displacement count and no. of persons of her kind in each school. She comes out with elaborate argument that her displacement count is low and in many schools teachers of her kind are less in UP region and more in some schools in Karnataka region but internal rationalization has not been done and she has been transferred 2000 kilometers away. She has quoted a catena of judegments from various Coordinate Benches including in O.A. 347/2022 and others of Ahmedabad Bench dated 12.09.2022, 13.09.2022 and 16.09.2022 and in writ Appeal No. 2083 of 2023 dated 03.03.2023 and Misc. Petition No. 1262/2023 dated 03.03.2023 etc; but these judgements hardly stand in front of the wide range of judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited by the respondents.
18. Simple perusal of the transfer guidelines annexed with the short counter affidavit, Revision of Education Code KVS dated 28.12.2012 as per 94 DOG meeting the basic principles of transfer policy reads as:-
1. All employees of the KVS are liable to be transferred and posted anywhere in India, at any time, and for any period, as requirements of public service and of the Sangathan may dictate. Transfers and postings are a right of the Sangathan which it would endeavor to exercise in the best interest of the students, with due regard to the principles of equity and transparency vis-à-vis its employees.
2. These guidelines regarding transfers are meant essentially for the internal use of the Sangathan and do not vest any employee with any right.Page 10 of 14
O.A./839/2022 Where it is very clear that these guidelines regarding transfer are meant essentially for the internal use of the Sangathan and do not vest any employee with any right. Hence, the transfer guideline cannot be read to be vesting any right and micro clarification in isolation for an employee about her displacement points and her relative merit compared to others not present before the court but alleged to be similar kind is very difficult to compare and understand. And as the said guideline does not confer any justiceable right to the individual, it cannot be examined in isolation and considered in favour of the employee before the court. Further, under method of administrative transfer at para f where it is clearly mentioned that "provided further, an employee can be transferred to a location in administrative exigencies without having any regard to the displacement count of the employee." Hence, the argument of the respondents that transfer order of the applicant being part of a long chain is bonafide in public interest appears to be convincing
19. In the instant case, it is glaring that the applicant has been relieved long back pursuant to the impugned order of transfer and even this Tribunal on 20.09.2022 while deciding on the interim prayer had relied on the judgment passed in June, 2015 by the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad Writ Appeal No. 34634/2015 decided in June 2015, Sachidanand Pandey Vs. Managing Director, U.P. State Bridge Corporation where it is observed that "A Govt. Servant should first join the place where he is transferred and after joining the transfer place, he may make a representation to the higher authorities to ventilate his grievance." and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.C. Saxena vs. Union of India and others reported in (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 583 has held that "A government servant cannot disobey the transfer order by not reporting at the new place of posting and going to court to ventilate his grievance. It is his duty to first report for work where he is transferred and then make a representation after his joining at the transferred place, as to what may be his personal problems. Such tendency of not reporting at new place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed. Conceding to such an argument will lead to a great indiscipline in public service. We are unable to accept such arguments." Based on these, the interim prayer was rejected on 20.09.2012. But the applicant has still not joined the new place of posting and has remained absent from duty for so Page 11 of 14 O.A./839/2022 long, not caring for the helpless students who suffer due to such absenteeism, and showing scant respect for the students' Right to Education. Accordingly it is difficult to consider that the applicant is before us with clean hands; as first she should have joined at the new place of posting and started teaching and then challenged the said order.
20. Considering the above ratio of judgements, in the instant case also, the applicant has yet to join at the transferred place and her only argument is that she was protected by Rule 6 of the Transfer Guidelines being a husband-wife case. Although, she is in her present place of posting for more than a decade and that her son is not well and having epilepsy. I do not find any report of any doctor which shows that such epilepsy needs the presence of the boy only in the present place of posting and it cannot be treated at Belgam district where Chikodi is located and from Chikodi at just one and half hours' distance, the best of more than one medical colleges are available at Belgam and two medical colleges at one hour distance at Kolhapur adjoining Maharashtra. The applicant has attached to the OA many routine medical papers of her son, but in the absence of an opinion based certificate of essentiality, such paper do not make out a case in favour of the applicant. The contention of the applicant regarding the ratio of judgements are mostly of coordinate Benches of Central Administrative Tribunal and few orders from the Hon'ble High Court which do not stand in front of the large number of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgements relied on by the respondents i.e. (i) B.Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (1986) 4 SCC 132;
(ii) Union of India and others vs. H.N.Kiratania, (1989) 3 SCC 445;
(iii) Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others vs. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659;
(iv) Union of India and others vs. S.L.Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357;
(v) Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle and another vs. Rajendra CH. Bhattacharjee and others, (1995) 2 SSCC 532;
(vi) State of M.P. and another vs. S.S. Kourav and others, (1995) 3 SCC 270;
(vii) National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan and Shiv Prakash, (2001) 8 SCC 574;
(viii) Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104;
Page 12 of 14O.A./839/2022
(ix) Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and another, (2004) 4 SCC 245;
(x) State of U.P. vs. Siya Ram, (2004) 7 SCC 405;
(xi) State of U.P. and others vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004)11 SCC 402;
(xii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and
others. (2004) 12 SCC 299;
(xiii) Union of India and others vs. Muralidhara Menon and another, (2009) 9 SCC 304;
(xiv) Rajendra Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Prdesh and others, (2009) 15 SCC 178; and
(xv) State of Haryana and others vs. Kashmir Singh and another, (2010) 13 SCC 306 And the ratio of conclusions therein that Transfer is a condition of service, it does not adversely affect the status or emoluments or seniority of the employee, the employee has no vested right to get a posting at a particular place or choose to serve at a particular place for a particular time, it is within the exclusive domain of the employer to determine as to what place and for how long the services of a particular employee are required and the transfer order is passed in public interest or administrative exigency, all simultaneously hit the case of the applicant. Spouse cases have to be considered sympathetically and as far as possible may be accommodated at the same station, but there is no vested right that the employee may expect to be posted at the same pace as that of spouse always without exception.
21. The malafide alleged are clearly not substantiated from the record, as the applicant has not identified any person within the Department, who is vindictive to her, and who may be attributed to malafide and made party in person as envisaged in the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement (supra); and she has also not identified any extraneous consideration of victimization or any political or other pressure in her case. The transfer policy and guidelines issued by the employer does not have any statutory force, as it mainly provides guidelines for the understanding of the Department. And the Court does not have the power to annul the transfer order only on the ground that it will cause the personal inconvenience of the employee and his family members and children. There is very little scope of judicial review by Courts and Tribunals against such transfer order and the same is restricted to only, if the transfer order is found to be in contravention of the statutory rules or Page 13 of 14 O.A./839/2022 established malafides. In the present case the applicant has failed to establish any malafide and also she is not able to show if it is in contravention of any statutory rule as Transfer Guidelines are not statutory in nature and the very preamble of the said rule says that it does not confer any right and it is a general guideline.
22. As the applicant has been for a long time (14 years) in the present place of posting and has not gone and joined at the new place of posting after being relieved. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders and hence the Original Application is liable to be dismissed, accordingly I pass following orders:-
In view of the ratios of judgements cited supra of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the OA is dismissed. The applicant is directed to join her new place of posting immediately. After her joining in new place, she is free to submit an application of her grievances, if any to the authorities who may examine and consider such application within three months thereafter.
23. M.A., if any, stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Sanjiv Kumar) Member-A /Priyadarshana/ Page 14 of 14