Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur

Kaushal Kishore Verma vs Kvs on 23 February, 2022

                                                     (OA No.55 /2022

                              (1)

              Central Administrative Tribunal
                   Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

                      O.A. No.55/2022

                                       Reserved on:21.02.2022
                                     Pronounced on:23.02.2022

         Hon'ble Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Member (A)
          Hon'ble Mrs. Hina P. Shah, Member (J)

  Kaushal Kishore Verma S/o Nathulal Verma, resident of 53,
  Shyam Vihar, Shyopur, Sanganer Jaipur-302033 (Raj.)
  presently working as TGT (Maths) at KV, Jhunjhunu (Group-B
  employee) M-9461420808.

                                                    ....Applicant

(By Adv: Shri K.K.Sharma)

                            VERSUS

1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan through its Commissioner, 18
   Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-
   110016.

2. Assistant Commissioner (Estt. II/III), Kendriya Vidyalaya
   Sangathan, 18 Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
   New Delhi-110016.

3. Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
   (Regional Office), 92, Gandhi Nagar, Marg, Bajaj Nagar,
   Jaipur-302015.
                                        ....Respondents


                            ORDER

    Per: Dinesh Sharma, Member (A):

Heard the matter at the admission.

2. The applicant has prayed for transferring him back from KV, Jhujhunu to KV No.4, Jaipur where clear vacancy of TGT Maths has arisen/created and is available. The applicant has filed this OA challenging the order dated 10.09.2021 (OA No.55 /2022 (2) (Annexure A/1). Earlier, the applicant approached this Tribunal challenging the same impugned order dated 10.09.2021 which was decided by order dated 30.11.2021 in OA No.281/2021 (Annexure A/2). Operative portions of the said order are reproduced below:

"12. We are in agreement with the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the official respondents that in the matter of transfer of a government employee, scope of judicial review is limited and Courts should normally not interfere in the said transfers. Also that Courts should not act as an Appellate Authority to assess the administrative needs and requirements of the Department. Also, that no government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted at any one particular place.
13. In the light of the observations made herein- above, the impugned transfer order dated 10.09.2021, (Annexure-A/1), does not call for any interference as the same is just and proper. The Original Application filed by the applicant being devoid of any merits deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs."

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that he has filed the present OA again because a clear vacancy has arisen at KV No.4, Jaipur. As per the guidelines of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 2021, an employee can be transferred back or deployed back from where he has been transferred from the station. He has also stated other reasons for transferring him back, such as his wife is working as Headmaster in Vishesh Vidyalaya and Punarwas Kendra, Jaipur. He has enclosed a copy of the transfer (OA No.55 /2022 (3) guidelines in support of his claim and also a copy of the legal notice dated 07.02.2022 sent to the respondents.

4. While hearing the case through video conferencing on 21.02.2022, learned counsel for the applicant was told that after our decision dated 30.11.2021 on this matter, the applicant should not have again filed this OA just because his legal notice dated 07.02.2022 has remained unanswered. Our order dated 30.11.2021 very clearly mentions that in the matter of transfer of a Government employee, scope of judicial review is limited and courts should normally not interfere in the said transfers. We have refrained from interfering in the order dated 10.09.2021. The applicant now wants us to again consider this matter only because he feels that he is entitled to get transfer cancelled and had issued a legal notice to the respondents. This is clearly an abuse of the adjudication process and we cannot entertain such application where there is no order impugned other than one on which we have rendered a detailed and reasoned judgment just about two months back.

5. In view of above, the OA does not deserve to be entertained and is dismissed. No costs.

(Hina P. Shah)                            (Dinesh Sharma)
  Member (J)                                   Member (A)
/kdr/