Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Ms Ujwala H Patil vs Kvs on 29 September, 2022
oN Central Administrative Tribunal , : Mumbai Bench, Mumbai OA. Na.7a5/2022 Thursday, 2o% day of September | Howble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member id} Ms. Ujwala H. Patil Aged about 56 years D/o Hanmant Rao Patil R/a Jai Jawan Nagat, Near Sri Krishna Mandir, Y arwada Pune-411 006 Email id:- ubwalapatilyed@ gmail.com Mob:- 9730405943 © . 4pplicant (Mr. PJ. Prasadrac, Acwocate} Yersus L The Comunissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110016
2. Deputy Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Mumbai Region IIT Campus, Powal Mumbai-goo0076.
The Principal Kendriva Vidyalaya No.3, BRD, PUne faa
4. The Principal Kendriya Vidyalaya, Haveri, Karnataka-9§81 110.
Respondents (Mr. V.S. Masurkar, Advocate) ORDERI(ORAL) By way of the instant O.A., the applicant has challenged the impugned transfer order dated 16.09.2022, ' whereby mass he OLA. Na.gox/2022 --
transfer of 717 PRT teachers has been ordered by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan CKVS) to different parts of the country. The applicant, who is employed as PRT, has been transferred from KV oRDR Pune to KV Haveri, Karnataka. She has also challenged the relieving order dated 17.09.2022.
2. itis submitted that the transfer has been made contrary . to the transfer policy contained in Transfer Guidelines 2021 for teachers wp to PGTs and others attributing to the following reasons:
G) Administrative Ground Gi) - For the purpose of rationalization
(iii) Re-distribution of existing teaching staff {iv} In order to ensure that at least 50% of regular teaching staff are available in all DVs across the country.
3. It is submitted that the applicant has been relieved without substitute. No substitute was posted in place of the applicant and students are deprived of the legitimate teaching classes for want of teacher. It is further submitted that in accordance with Articde 71 (7} of Education Code for RVs where teachers are in surplus action will be taken to reduce such surplus. Hence, the present transfer is highly erroneous and not covered under the transfer policy as the Vidyalaya is having deficiency of teaching staff and contrary to the ibid Article.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that according to the report published by NCERT in the Y OLA, No. 95/2092 ai chapter relating to KVS, it has been stated that during COVID-
ooantStiag aes ae oes fs ~~ 2019, as classes were taking place in online mode, 5.4% of the + ob students who participated in the survey reported facing difficulties in understanding and learning of content through on line mode. Hence, the need was felt to address on priority, the learning challenges being faced by the students for the past two years due to pandemic through administrative means. The rationalization of teachers and redistribution of the existing teaching staff have been effected to address the above core challenges after the pandemic so that at least 50% of regular teaching staff (inclusive of all cadres) are available in all RVs. The KVS has identified around 237 KVs having less than 50% of regular teaching staff on its rolls and about 481 Vs having 8o% or more regular teaching staff.on its rolls in all over India on the basis of available vacancy and as per station seniority (All India/cadre/subject-wise), who has the longest stay in a station, as per date of joining at the station was taken as the criteria for transfer and most of the teachers who have been transferred have had a stay in particular station for more than 10 years.
5. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has also given a representation dated 17.09.2022, containing substantial personal grounds, requesting to retain her in the same Vidyalaya where she was serving and the same is pending with the respondents.
f eynae® "Sete A. No.yo5/eae2
6. 'It is seen that mass transfers have taken place, transfer policy was kept in abeyance on 12.09.2022 and transfer orders have been issued on 14.09.2022 and 16.09.2022. The transfer orders have been given. effect ta from the date they were passed. There is nothing on record as to what was the objectivity taken to choose the applicant for the station to which they have been posted. No methodology was formulated. Prima facie the impugned transfer orders have been passed capriciously, irrationally and/or unthout adequate determining principles also they seem fo be excessive and disproportionate. Moreover, various benches of the Tribunal and even this Tribunal has stayed the order of transfer and relieving of the incumbents.
7. Having heard the counsel appearing for both parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to dispose of this O.A. at the admission stage itself with a direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation of the applicant dated 17.09.2022 by passing a reasoned and speaking order. If the order to be passed by the respondents is adverse to the applicant In any manner, she would be at liberty to approach this Tribunal once again within a period of two weeks from the date of such order. Tul then, the relieving order dated 17.09.2022 shail not be executed by the respondents and she shall be allowed to continue discharging her duties at RV oOBDR, Pune.
OA Noros/eoed
8. With the aforesaid directions the OA stands disposed of.
There shall be no order on ensts.
- (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi ) Member (J)