Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
V.K. Gangwal S/O Shri J.L. Jain vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 26 April, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 333/2013
DATE OF ORDER: 26.04.2013
CORAM
HONBLE MR. ANIL KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
V.K. Gangwal S/o Shri J.L. Jain, aged about 46 years, R/o 39/1, Rashtriya Military School, Ajmer. At present working as Master Gazetted (Commerce) in Rashtriya Military School, Ajmer 305001.
Applicant
Mr. Surendra Singh, proxy counsel for
Mr. M.S. Gupta, counsel for applicant.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
2. Director General of Military Training MT-15, General Staff Branch, Integrated H.Q. of MOD (Army), New Delhi 110011.
3. Principal, Rashtriya Military School, Ajmer.
4. Shri Tapan Yadav, Master Gazetted, Rashtriya Military School, Ajmer.
Respondents
Mr. Ashish Kumar, counsel, as Caveator on behalf of the official respondents.
ORDER (ORAL)
This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the applicant had filed O.A. No. 236/2013 being aggrieved by the transfer order dated 08.03.2013, whereby he was transferred from Rashtriya Military School (RMS), Ajmer to Rashtriya Military School (RMS), Chail (Himachal Pradesh). The said OA was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 19.03.2013. The applicant was given liberty to make a representation to the respondents within a period of seven days from the date of order raising all his grievances, and the respondents were directed to consider and decide the representation of the applicant expeditiously in accordance with the provision of law but in any case within a period of one month from the date of receipt of representation from the applicant.
2. The applicant filed a representation on 22nd March, 2013 (Annexure A/7) before the respondents and it has been decided by the respondents vide their order dated 17th April, 2013 (Annexure A/2). The applicant, being aggrieved by the rejection of his representation, has filed the present Original Application.
3. The present Original Application was heard on merit at the admission stage itself as Shri Ashish Kumar, counsel, appeared as Caveator on behalf of the official respondents.
4. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the learned counsel for the applicant, are that the applicant was appointed on the post of Master Gazetted (Commerce) in Rashtriya Military School, Ajmer. Since initial appointment, the applicant has been performing his duties with utmost efficiency, integrity and devotion to duties. However, the applicant has been transferred at Rashtriya Military School, Chail (Himachal Pradesh) from Rashtriya Military School, Ajmer without any administrative exigency or public interest vide order dated 08th March, 2013 (Annexure A/1).
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there is no Commerce subject at RMS, Chail, therefore, the applicant cannot be transferred from RMS, Ajmer to RMS, Chail. He also submitted that the applicant has always been ready and willing to go where Commerce subject is taught and he will have no grievance if he is transferred to the institution where Commerce subject is taught for which he was appointed by the U.P.S.C.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the Commerce stream was discontinued to be taught in the year 2008 at RMS, Ajmer. Thereafter, the applicant was forced to teach Social Science and Maths but he is not graduate either in Maths or Social Science nor B.A., B.Ed. in Maths or Social Science. He was forced to teach class VI.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant has been transferred to RMS Chail to accommodate one Shri Tapan Yadav, Master Gazetted (Respondent No. 4) from RMS Chail to RMS Ajmer.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the Commerce subject is only being taught to the students in Rashtriya Military School, Belgaum (Karnataka).
9. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that by the transfer of the applicant from RMS, Ajmer to RMS Chail, he will lose his seniority in Commerce stream and his promotions will be adversely affected, therefore, his transfer from RMS, Ajmer to RMS Chail may be quashed and set aside.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant also quoted the relevant extract of the transfer policy dated 14th December, 2005, which reads as under: -
Transfer of teachers on completion of six years of service in respective school will be holistically reviewed by the Army Headquarters (MT-15) with an aim to provide equal opportunity to maximum teaching staff to serve all institutions and stations. He submitted that this stray sentence does not authorize / empower the respondents to transfer the applicant who is Master Gazetted in Commerce where the Commerce is not subject at all. The applicant has requested to his higher officers to post him where Commerce subject is being taught.
11. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the Original Application may be allowed and the transfer order dated 08.03.2013 (Annexure A/1), rejection order on representation dated 17th April, 2013 (Annexure A/2) and Movement Order dated 22nd April 2013 (Annexure A/3) may be quashed and set aside and the applicant may either be allowed to continue at RMS, Ajmer or be transferred to any place where Commerce subject is taught.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the official respondents, appeared as Caveator, submitted that this Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation given by the applicant with regard to his transfer from RMS, Ajmer to RMS, Chail. The respondents have considered the representation of the applicant and have passed a very detailed and speaking order on 17th April, 2013 (Annexure A/2). He further submitted that the applicant was appointed on the post of Master Gazetted in Commerce vide order dated 17th March, 1997 in RMS, Ajmer. He has completed 16 years of service in the same school where he was appointed. The transfer of the applicant has been ordered in the interest of organization, with an aim to provide equal opportunity to maximum teaching staff to serve all institutions and stations as per the transfer policy in vogue. The applicant was teaching Maths and Social Science to Middle and Secondary classes in RMS, Ajmer after discontinuation of Commerce stream in 2008. The applicant will be teaching the same subject at RMS, Chail also.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the seniority of the applicant in Commerce stream will not be disturbed. He will be considered for promotions on his turn and, therefore, he argued that the contention of the learned counsel of the applicant that the applicant will lose his seniority in Commerce stream is misconceived. He also denied that the applicant has been transferred to RMS, Chail to accommodate one Shri Tapan Yadav, Master Gazetted, from RMS Chail to RMS, Ajmer. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the respondents have categorically stated in their order dated 17th April, 2013 (Annexure A/2) that Commerce stream is available at RMS Bangalore only where adequate staff is available. Moreover, it is the administrative authority to decide to employ the applicant judicially. The applicant will be performing the same duties at RMS Chail, which he has been performing at RMS, Ajmer. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no merit in the Original Application and it should be dismissed at the admission stage itself.
14. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the relevant documents available on record. It is not disputed between the parties that the applicant is Master Gazetted (Commerce). Further, the applicant has been posted at RMS, Ajmer since 1997 i.e. he has been working at RMS, Ajmer for last 16 years. It is also not disputed that the Commerce stream was discontinued at RMS, Ajmer in the year 2008 and since then the applicant has been teaching Social Science and Maths to the Middle and Secondary classes at RMS, Ajmer. It is also not disputed that at present the Commerce stream is available only at RMS, Bangalore.
15. The respondents while deciding the representation of the applicant have very categorically stated that adequate staff is available at RMS, Bangalore. Since the applicant has been working at RMS, Ajmer for last 16 years, he has been transferred to RMS, Chail. In the appointment letter of the applicant, it was brought out that the applicants services would be subject to Field Services Liability Rules, and he will be liable to serve anywhere in India. The applicant accepted all terms and conditions stated in the appointment letter while taking up the appointment. He has been transferred in the interest of the students / cadets of the school and in the interest of organization.
16. In para 2 of the order dated 17th April 2013 (Annexure A/2), the respondents have also quoted the relevant extract of para 1 (b) of the transfer policy dated 14th December, 2005, which reads as under:
Transfer of teachers on completion of six years of service in respective school will be holistically reviewed by the Army Headquarters (MT-15) with an aim to provide equal opportunity to maximum teaching staff to serve all institutions and stations. This provision clearly provides that the transfer of teachers on completion of six years of service in respective school will be holistically reviewed by the Army Headquarters (MT-15) with an aim to provide equal opportunity to maximum teaching staff to serve all institutions and stations. In the instant case, the applicant has been working for last 16 years at RMS, Ajmer, therefore, in my opinion there has been no violation of the transfer policy in the case of the applicant.
17. It has been admitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was teaching Maths and Social Science to the students / cadets at RMS, Ajmer after the discontinuation of Commerce subject at RMS, Ajmer in the year 2008. Thus, it is clear that the applicant was teaching Maths and Social Science for last 5 years. The respondents have categorically stated in their order dated 17th April, 2013 (Annexure A/2) that the applicant would continue to teach the same subjects i.e. Maths and Social Science at RMS, Chail.
18. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicants seniority would not be disturbed in Commerce stream and that he will be considered for promotions in Commerce stream on his turn, I do not find any force in the averments made by the learned counsel for the applicant that he would lose his seniority in case the applicant joins at RMS, Chail. Thus, even on this ground, the applicant is not entitled for any relief in the present O.A.
19. Learned counsel for the respondents has categorically stated that Commerce stream is available only at RMS, Bangalore where adequate staff is available. Therefore, the applicant could not be transferred to Bangalore. The stand taken by the respondents is reasonable and I do not find any reason to interfere with the stand taken by the respondents in this regard.
20. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. G. Venkata Ratnam reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 900, in para 11 has held as under:
..The legal position regarding interference by courts in the matter of transfer is to well established to be repeated here. The respondents transfer neither suffers from violation of any statutory rules nor can it be described as mala fide by any stretch of imagination. We are, accordingly, unable to sustain the High Courts order. In the result this appeal is allowed, the order coming under challenge is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court is dismissed.
21. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others vs. Gobardhan Lal, reported in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 55, in para 7 and 8, has held as under: -
7. It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential 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 mala fide 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 of routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made ..
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.
22. Thus, the ratio decided by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. G. Venkata Ratnam (supra) and in the case of State of U.P. and Others vs. Gobardhan Lal (supra) is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, I am of the opinion that the transfer order has been issued by the competent authority and it is not based on mala fides. It is also not in violation of any statutory provision. The applicant has been working at RMS, Ajmer for last 16 years. There was no Commerce stream even at RMS, Ajmer after the year 2008 and the applicant was teaching Maths and Social Science and he will continue to teach Maths and Social Science to the students/ cadets at RMS, Chail (Himachal Pradesh) also. As per the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents, the seniority of the applicant in Commerce stream will not be disturbed. Therefore, I am of the view that the transfer order dated 08th March, 2013 (Annexure A/1), order on representation dated 17th April, 2013 (Annexure A/2) and Movement Order dated 22nd April, 2013 (Annexure A/3) need no interference from this Tribunal. The applicant is not entitled for any relief in the present Original Application.
23. Consequently, the Original Application being devoid of merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(ANIL KUMAR) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER kumawat