Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Vinay Singh Verma vs Kvs on 29 November, 2023
1
OA No. 507/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
...
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 507/2023
Order reserved on : 12.10.2023
Date of order: 29.11.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI LOK RANJAN, MEMBER (A)
Vinay Singh Verma S/o Shri Vinod Kumar Verma, aged
about 46 years, R/o E-13, Mahal Yojana, Near
Akshaypatra, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Presently posted on
the post of Principal Grade-II at K V, Bandikui and
under transfer to KV, AFS, Jaisalmer. (M-
9772628910) Group-A Services. Email ID-
[email protected].
Subject: Surplus Transfers
...Applicant
(By Adv: Ms. Kavita Bhati)
Versus
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan through the
Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed
Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi 110016.
2. Assistant Commissioner (Establishment-I),
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional
Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi
110016.
2
OA No. 507/2023
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan (R.O.), 92, Gandhi Nagar Marg, Bajaj
Nagar, Jaipur-302016.
4. Kalu Ram Meena, Vice-Principal, Posted to KV No.
5 Jaipur (1st Shift), Prahmhans Marg, Sector-7,
Mansaraovar, Jaipur Rajasthan-302020.
5. Harish Kumar Beadwal, Vice-Prinicipal, Posted to
KV No. 1, Jaipur, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur-302015.
...Respondents.
(By Adv: Shri Hawa Singh)
ORDER
Per : Shri Lok Ranjan, Member(A)
The present Original Application has been filed by the Applicant, Shri Vinay Singh Verma, who was posted as Principal Grade-II at Kendriya Vidyalaya (KV), Bandikui. The Applicant filed the said OA on being aggrieved by the impugned Office Order dated 15.09.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 2, transferring the Applicant from KV Bandikui to KV AFS Jaisalmer.
2. From the pleadings and the related documents, the fact matrix relevant to this OA emerges as follows 3 OA No. 507/2023 in brief- The Applicant was working as Principal Grade-II / Vice-Principal at KV Bandikui, Jaipur since 23.10.2019. Eventually the said KV was upgraded and accordingly a revised sanctioned strength of teaching and non-teaching staff was issued on 04.05.2023 by Respondent No.3, inter alia adding the upgraded post of Principal and reducing the post of Vice-Principal at KV Bandikui, Jaipur ; also, thereby rendering the Applicant as surplus at KV Bandikui, Jaipur. Therefore, on 10.07.2023, the Applicant had filled-up the Transfer Application Form called for by the Respondents, indicating his choices for transfer on administrative grounds as Jaipur, Ajmer, Alwar, Bharatpur and Kota in that order of preference ; and for Jaipur station for request transfer. Subsequently, vide the Order dated 31.07.2023, posting was done for another incumbent Principal at KV Bandikui, who joined on 03.08.2023. Moreover, other private Respondents No.4 and No.5 were posted on 13.09.2023 and 15.09.2023 respectively, against the vacancies that had existed at the stations / KVs for which preference was indicated by the Applicant who had been rendered surplus. Eventually, the Applicant was transferred / posted to KV AFS, Jaisalmer vide the 4 OA No. 507/2023 impugned Order of the Respondent No.2 dated 15.09.2023 and relieved immediately on 16.09.2023.
3. Through the pleadings and the arguments by the learned counsel for the Applicant, the substantive case presented by the Applicant is in gist that as per the Transfer Guidelines circulated by the Respondents, as well as the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 notified vide the Notification dated 28.02.1990 by the Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT) of the Government of India, the surplus staff have to be deployed on priority and existing vacancies should not be filled up prior to their re-deployment. The Applicant's contention is that the same had not been followed while issuing the transfer/ posting orders for other private Respondents No.4 and No.5, dated 13.09.2023 and 15.09.2023 respectively ; and further while issuing the transfer / posting order dated 15.09.2023 for the Applicant.
4. It has been averred by the Applicant that as per the Transfer Policy 2023 for the KVS, the process of redeployment of surplus staff is to be done at the beginning of the academic session, whereas the 5 OA No. 507/2023 Applicant has been transferred in mid-academic session on 15.09.2023, which is prejudicial to the interest of the students as well as teachers of the KV Sangathan. It has been presented moreover that the Transfer Policy of 2023 in Part-IB applicable for Group 'A' and 'B' (Section Officer and above) equivalent employees - also including Principal and Vice-Principal
- provides that apart from transfers in organizational interest and on administrative grounds, the Commissioner KVS reserves the right to transfer any employee based on request in exceptional circumstances against clear vacancies even after completion of transfer process inter alia for transfer on spouse ground vide Part-IB.3I where both spouses are KV employees or where one spouse is a KV employee and the other is a Central Government / Defence / Central PSU / Central Autonomous Body / State Government employee. It is averred by the Applicant that even if this were invoked by the competent authority / Commissioner KVS while issuing the Orders for other private Respondents No.4 and No.5, dated 13.09.2023 and 15.09.2023 respectively, this was unjustified as the same could only have been exercised after completion of the transfer process and 6 OA No. 507/2023 not before issuing the list for redeployment of surplus staff ; and further that since the spouse of the Applicant is serving at Jaipur as a State Government employee and the Applicant has also not completed the tenure at the present place of posting but the stay at the station was more than three years, the Applicant was even otherwise also eligible for such consideration ; and non-consideration similarly while issuing the transfer / posting order dated 15.09.2023 for the Applicant was thus arbitrary and unjustified.
5. The Applicant has averred moreover that the Rules notified through DOPT Notification dated 28.02.1980 provide vide Rule-3(1)(iv) thereof that all vacancies in Central Civil Services and posts in Group 'A' and 'B', which are to be filled up by direct recruitment or by transfer but otherwise than through the Commission (i.e., the Union Public Service Commission) shall first be reported to the Cell [defined to be the Central (Surplus Staff) Cell in the DOPT, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, in relation to the surplus staff belonging to Groups 'A' 'B' and 'C'] and shall be filled from amongst the surplus staff, unless the controlling authority for 7 OA No. 507/2023 the service or post in question has ascertained from the Cell that they have no suitable persons from among the surplus staff available with them for being nominated against the particular post. Moreover, the Rule-4(1)(i) also provides for entitlement to first priority for appointment to the vacancies in Groups 'A' 'B' services and posts for the surplus employees recommended by the Cell. Hence, it has been contended by the Applicant that in the absence of a certificate of non-availability of surplus staff for redeployment against such vacancies in the first instance from the concerned Cell, the action of the official Respondents - whereby they have filled the vacancies at the choice station of the Applicant by posting private Respondents No.4 and No.5 at Jaipur - was illegal and arbitrary.
6. Further, it has been presented that the Applicant's daughter is studying in Class XII in a C.B.S.E. affiliated School and has already been registered for the Board Examination in 2024 through her school and is also preparing for the Medical Entrance Examination (NEET) for which she is taking coaching at Jaipur. Considering these circumstances 8 OA No. 507/2023 also, the Applicant had represented on 16.09.2023 to the Respondents to consider modification of his posting place to any nearby station to Jaipur instead of Jaisalmer which is approximately 550 km away ; which was not considered at all and had purportedly stood disposed of with the closure of the annual transfer process-2023 on 29.09.2023.
7. The Applicant has, therefore, filed the OA seeking to set aside the Order dated 15.09.2023 so far as the Applicant was concerned ; and further to quash / set aside the transfer Orders for other private Respondents No.4 and No.5, dated 13.09.2023 and 15.09.2023 respectively. The grounds for the relief being sought are thus that the transfer / posting of the Applicant to Jaisalmer was arbitrary, illegal and unjustified for the reasons mentioned ; and further on the grounds that the actions of the Respondents regarding transfer / postings of the private Respondents No.4 and No.5, dated 13.09.2023 and 15.09.2023 respectively were violative of the Transfer Policy 2003 of KVS and contrary to the Rules notified vide Notification dated 28.02.1990 of the DOPT for redeployment of surplus staff; as well as illegal also in 9 OA No. 507/2023 view of its non-conformity to the DOPT OM dated 30.09.2009 that provides for posting of spouses at the same station if vacancies exist ; and in case of inability to post the employee at the station of the spouse even if posts are available, specific reasons therefor be communicated to the employee.
8. On the other hand, through pleadings and arguments, the learned counsel for the Respondents has made the preliminary submissions that the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) is an autonomous organization registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860, with Board of Governors (BOG) as its authority and Minister of Education as its Chairman inter alia. As per the Education Code (revised edition) approved by the BOG as the supreme authority for laying down the policy of KVS, the employees appointed in KVS are liable for transfer anywhere in India under Article 71 thereof. The Transfer Guidelines though a part of the KVS policy are essentially meant for its internal use to manage administrative affairs ; and do not confer any right on the employees in the matter of transfer, which is an incident of employment. In any case, the 10 OA No. 507/2023 organizational interest shall be given uppermost consideration and the problems / constraints of the employee shall remain subservient while effecting transfers as per the Transfer Policy-2023 in effect presently. Further, in respect of the specific contents of the O.A. the Respondents admitted these only to the extent of facts / matters of record ;but have not admitted to and emphatically denied/controverted the Applicant's contentions.
9. The Respondents have further submitted that any employee can be transferred in the interest of the KVS organization and students as per the governing rules, regulations and policy guidelinesof the KVS ; and in any case after completion of the North Eastern Region station of Dinjan, the Applicant was transferred to and had continued his service near his home town Jaipur, Rajasthan State for twenty years since 2003 purely on humanitarian grounds of posting of spouse. The claimed illegality, arbitrariness or violation of any of the legal / constitutional rights of the Applicant were unsubstantiated. The Respondents have also underlined the settled position in law pertaining to transfer of Government employees based upon the 11 OA No. 507/2023 authority of the superior Courts, inter alia the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in multiple related cases ; some of the cases out of those are cited hereafter to bring out the relevant aspects of settled position as follows.
10. The Respondents have submitted that the scope of judicial review of matters of transfer of a government servant is limited. In support, the case of Airports Authority of India vs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey (2009) 8 SCC 337, Hon'ble Apex Court was cited whereby it had inter alia been held that :
"10. ... ... In a matter of transfer of a government employee, scope of judicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer."
11. Further, the Respondents have submitted that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless vitiated by mala fides or made in violation of any statutory provision. Hence, the courts or tribunals should normally eschew a challenge to an order of transfer and not countenance these as though 12 OA No. 507/2023 they are Appellate Authorities over such orders. In support, the case of State of U.P. vs. Gobardhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402, Hon'ble Apex Court was cited, vide which it had inter alia held that :
"7. ... ... Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as anessential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a malafide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as 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. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision.13 OA No. 507/2023
8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer."
12. Moreover, the Respondents have submitted that 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. In support, the case of Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar (1991) Supp 2 SCC 659, Hon'ble Apex Court was cited whereby it had inter alia been held that :
" 4. ... ... 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 14 OA No. 507/2023 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."
13. Also, the Respondents have submitted that while there may be guidelines providing for posting of the spouses at the same station as far as possible, these do not confer a legally enforceable right upon the Applicant. In support, the case of Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 has been cited, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court had inter alia held that :
" 6. ... ... It is not the case of the respondent that the order of his transfer is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the authority making the order - though the Tribunal does say so merely because certain guidelines issued by the Central Government are not followed, with which finding we shall deal later. The respondent attributed "mischief" to his immediate superior who had nothing to do with his transfer. All he says is that he should not be transferred because his wife is working at Shillong, his children are studying there and also because his health had suffered a setback some time ago. He relies upon 15 OA No. 507/2023 certain executive instructions issued by the Government in that behalf. Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force.
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."
14. In the Rejoinder on part of the Applicant which are taken on record as part and parcel of the OA, it has been submitted that the Respondents have accepted that the Central Government Rules are applicable on the KVS Organization and the policies of KVS are framed accordingly. In the present case, the Transfer Guidelines 2023 had not been approved by the BOG of KVS and are under challenge before various benches of the Hon'ble Tribunal ; the previous transfer policy guidelines of 2021 still form the part of Article 71-A of the Education Code of the KVS - which 16 OA No. 507/2023 provide exemption from transfer of KVS employees whose children were appearing for Board Examinations, i.e. Class-X and -XII in that specific year ; and that the provisions of the Education Code, Memoranda of Association, Articles of Association and Section-12 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 have not been followed while seeking to amend the same vide Transfer Guidelines-2023. It has also been submitted that there have been numerous decisions of the Hon'ble Courts whereby mid-academic session transfers were quashed looking at the interest of students as well as the teachers. It has been made out on part of the Applicants that the transfer of certain private Respondents and others had been made prior to the redeployment of surplus staff and even before completion of their tenures at the respective stations on extraneous considerations ; and thereby mala fides and colourable exercise of powers by the Respondent administrative authorities are imputed. It has been also mentioned that the Respondents have misled by providing false statements regarding the Applicant having been posted near Jaipur for twenty years since 2003, whereas in fact he had been transferred to various 17 OA No. 507/2023 places as Kota, Hanumangarh and Gauribidanur (Karnataka) located about 270 km, 500 km and 2000 km respectively from Jaipur meanwhile. On the other hand, several employees had been working at Jaipur for extended durations and were either transferred to nearby Jaipur or moved back to Jaipur on extraneous consideration. Moreover, the daughter of the Applicant, studying in Class-XII in the current academic session at Maharaja Sawai Bhawani Singh School at Jaipur, is already registered from the said School for the Board Examination-2024. Finally, it has also been submitted by the Applicant that each case has to be adjudicated on its peculiar facts and circumstances and the judgments as per citations by the Respondents pertain to general transfers which are not applicable in the present case which pertains to surplus staff and their redeployment.
15. Further, at the stage of final hearing on 12.10.2023, the crucial aspects of the case were argued at length and the learned counsel for the Applicant reiterated that the statutory Rules viz. the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 notified through DOPT Notification dated 28.02.1980 - 18 OA No. 507/2023 in particular provide vide Rule-3(1)(iv) thereof that all vacancies in Central Civil Services and posts in Group 'A' and 'B', which are to be filled up by direct recruitment or by transfer but otherwise than through the Commission (UPSC) shall first be reported to the Central (Surplus Staff) Cell in the DOPT, in relation to the surplus staff belonging to Groups 'A' 'B' and 'C' ; and shall be filled from amongst the surplus staff, unless the controlling authority for the service or post in question has ascertained from the Cell that they have no suitable persons from among the surplus staff available with them for being nominated against the particular post. Moreover, the Rule-4(1)(i) thereof also provides for entitlement to first priority for appointment to the vacancies in Groups 'A' and 'B' services and posts for the surplus employees recommended by the Cell. Apart from contending that the same had not been followed when the impugned posting/transfer orders dated 15.09.2023 were issued by the Respondents, the learned counsel for the Applicant had also sought permission to bring on record the Judgment dated 29.01.2008 of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No.741 of 2007, The UOI and Ors. vs. V. Suresh Babu and Ors. ; which was 19 OA No. 507/2023 permitted. The learned counsel for Applicant had presented that this case pertained specifically to transfer on surplus ground in KVS and was thus squarely relevant in the present case as well. It had underlined the priority for accommodating the persons who were transferred from a place on grounds of surplus as follows :
"16. Thus, it must be held that a Teacher who was transferred from a place on surplus grounds, will have a right for re-transfer over the discretionary power conferred on the authority under Rule 18(b) and also against the candidates who served in hard places. Therefore, only after accommodating the persons who were transferred from a place on ground of surplus, the question of considering the case of others by the Commissioner under Rule 18(b) would arise."
16. The foregoing pleadings - including in particular the policy and rules related to the case, arguments and the authority of the judgments of higher Courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Madras High Court - have been carefully gone through. In the conspectus of the same, it clearly emerges that there position related to transfer of Government employees already well-settled in law vide a number of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court 20 OA No. 507/2023 as cited by the learned counsel for the Respondents has been brought out inter alia to be that -
(i) Scope of judicial review is limited and interference with an order of transfer cannot be done lightly, because the courts cannot substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer ;
(ii) Order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless vitiated by mala fides or made in violation of any statutory provision. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service;
(iii) Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any legal rights even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive 21 OA No. 507/2023 instructions or orders ; and the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department ;
(iv) Although unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the courts cannot interfere with it, there is no doubt that the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject while ordering the transfer. 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 ; and,
(v) The guidelines that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.
(vi) On similar lines, the exemption from transfer of KVS employees whose children were appearing for Board Examinations, i.e. Class-X and -XII in that specific year, purportedly incorporated in the Transfer Guidelines-2021 would not confer upon 22 OA No. 507/2023 the Government employee a legally enforceable right even if that provision were to be valid presently.
17. Therefore, it clearly emerges from the foregoing that the efficient functioning of the KVS organization has to be accorded primacy while effecting the transfers by the administrative authorities and the problems and constraints of the Applicant employee shall remain subservient. In light of the settled position of law in this regard, the personal problems of the Applicant cannot come in the way of public service and interest in matters of transfer / posting. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer / posting order dated 15.09.2023 qua the Applicant.
18. However, it is significant that the higher Courts have also held that while the Government is deemed to be the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees, such power must be exercised in public interest ; that even administrative actions should be just and fair ; that although unless the order of transfer is vitiated by 23 OA No. 507/2023 mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the courts cannot interfere with it, yet there is no doubt that the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject while ordering the transfer ; and that 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 learned counsel for the Applicants argued vehemently in particular that the statutory rules related to the redeployment of surplus staff have not been followed in the Applicant's case.
19. Hence, this specific issue of not following the statutory Rules purportedly applicable in this case has been examined carefully and at length. It is a fact that the impugned order dated 15.09.2023 mentioned the reason for transfer of inter alia the Applicant being surplus at his existent place of posting in KV Bandikui, Jaipur and consequently transferred him in public interest to KV AFS, Jaisalmer. However, it needs to be examined if the procedure as per the statutory Rules cited by the Applicant viz. the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 notified through DOPT 24 OA No. 507/2023 Notification dated 28.02.1980 - in particular Rule- 3(1)(iv) thereof and the Rule-4(1)(i) thereof - that provide for entitlement to first priority for appointment to the vacancies in Groups 'A' and 'B' services and posts for the surplus employees recommended by the Surplus Staff Cell was mandated in the instant case when the impugned posting/transfer orders dated 15.09.2023 were issued by the Respondents. For this it is material to look at the definition vide Rule 2(g), which states that 'Surplus staff' and 'surplus employee or employees' means the Central Civil Servants (other than those employed on ad hoc, casual, work-charged or contract basis) who - (a) are permanent or, if temporary, have rendered no less than five years regular service and (b) have been rendered surplus along with their posts from the Ministries, Departments, Offices of the Government of India, as a result of -
(1) administrative and financial reforms including inter alia, restructuring of an organization, zero base budgeting, transfer of an activity to a State Government, Public Sector Undertaking or other autonomous organization, discontinuation of an 25 OA No. 507/2023 ongoing activity, and introduction of changes in technology, or (2) studies of work measurement undertaken by Staff Inspection Unit of the Ministry of Finance or any other body set up by the Central Government or the Ministry/Department concerned ; or (3) abolition or winding up either in whole or in part of an organization of the Central Government.
20. It emerged from the said definition that for the cover of the said statutory Rules, viz. the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 notified through DOPT Notification dated 28.02.1980, to be applicable, the rendering of staff as surplus has to be along with their posts from the Ministries, Departments, Offices of the Government of India ; that too as a result of - either administrative and financial reforms, or of studies of work measurement, or of abolition or winding up either in whole or in part of an organization of the Central Government. The causative factor for rendering of surplus have thus to be understood to being of a deeper and wider import and should also render the related posts as surplus 26 OA No. 507/2023 together with the concerned staff. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the revised sanction of various posts/cadres in the teaching and non-teaching staff was due to opening of new classes/sections specifically at KV Bandikui, Jaipur- an action that prima facie is of public interest and taken with due consideration. The rendering of Applicant as surplus thereby is only of local import with reference to that one branch of the KVS, due to upgradation of the functional head to be Principal instead of Vice- Principal, resultant to opening of Class-IX at the said KV Bandikui, Jaipur. This clearly is in the nature of a local administrative adjustment of posts and incumbent cadres by the Commissioner KVS to ensure alignment with the said action ; and clearly does not tantamount to rendering of staff as surplus along with their posts from the Ministries, Departments, Offices of the Government of India ; that too not as a result of - either administrative and financial reforms, or of studies of work measurement, or of abolition or winding up either in whole or in part of an organization of the Central Government. In fact, in the hypothetical assumption of these being sought to be applied,it can be envisaged that the entire process of 27 OA No. 507/2023 local and day-to-day transfers and adjustments of posts/staff as per administrative requirements could become extremely and unimplementably cumbersome, with potential to cause complete chaos in the administration not conducive to public interest. Moreover, that the Applicant has not become surplus with reference to the available posts of Vice-Principal in the KVS organization is also self-evident form the fact that posts are available to accommodate him and other incumbent Vice-Principals at other KV branches under the KVS. Thus, in light of the foregoing elaborate examination, we find that the present situation is one where the statutory rules cited - viz. the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 notified through DOPT Notification dated 28.02.1980 - are not applicable. The consequent issue of according priority for accommodating the persons who were transferred from a place on grounds of surplus is also rendered moot thereby.
21. Having thus carefully gone through the pleadings of the Applicant and the Respondents together with annexures and the applicable Guidelines, in light of the arguments by the learned Counsels and with 28 OA No. 507/2023 regard to the settled positions of law relevant to the matter, we find that the impugned order dated 15.09.2023 is not fit to be interfered with.
22. However, even while maintaining the care not to interfere with transfers and postings made by competent administrative authorities, we notice firstly that the competent authorities have disposed of the representation dated 16.09.2023 of the Application through a general notice dated 29.09.2023. On the technical grounds of the closure of the annual transfer process-2023, the representation submitted inter alia by the Applicant for review of his transferis deemed to have been disposed of, although specific orders were not issued in respect of the same. As submitted also by the learned counsel for the Respondents in the pleadings, the higher Courts also place the onus upon the competent administrative authorities that 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 [Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357]. In addition, it is also noticed that the Applicant's daughter is currently studying in Class-XII 29 OA No. 507/2023 at a CBSE affiliated school in Jaipur and has already been registered for the Board Examination-2024 through her school ; and is also informed to be preparing for the medical entrance examination (NEET) for which she is taking coaching classes at Jaipur. While no legally enforceable right is conferred thereby upon him, the Applicant has prayed for consideration of alternative posting if possible, to help avoid detrimental effect on the studies of his daughter. The Original Application is therefore, disposed of with the direction to the competent authorities / Respondents to examine and dispose of the representation dated 16.09.2023 as deemed fit on substantive merit, if any ; and the further direction to have a sympathetic consideration as far as feasible inter alia of the request of the Applicant for retention at the present station of posting till the end of the current academic session or for posting to an alternative station. It is clarified that these directions are not to be deemed as tantamount to a mandate to positively accept the Applicant's request, but are made to invoke the discretion of the competent administrative authorities while keeping the 30 OA No. 507/2023 organizational interests and the welfare of the employeein balance.
23. Therefore, the Original Application is disposed of with the foregoing directions.
24. No order as to costs.
(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi) Member (A) Member (J) !Vv