Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Brij Bihari vs Kvs on 17 February, 2023
OA No. 330/00880/2022
(Reserved on 02.02.2022)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Allahabad this, the 17th day of February, 2023
Original Application No. 330/00880/2022
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative)
Brij Bihari, a/a 53 years, PGT (Biology), son of Shri Channu Ram,
Resident of Jalalpur Kori, District - Chandauli.
. . .Applicant
By Advocate : Shri Prashat Shukla
Shri Ram Prakash Upadhyay
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Education,
Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Headquarter), 18,
Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Marg, New Delhi through
its Chairman.
3. Assistant Commissioner, (Establishment) 2/3, Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan (Headquarter), New Delhi.
4. Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pandit Deen Dayal
Upadhyay Nagar, Chandauli.
. . .Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Rishi Kumar
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative) Shri Ram Prakash Upahdyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rishi Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
Page 1 of 5
OA No. 330/00880/2022
2. By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :
" (i) To set aside the impugned transfer order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Respondent No.3 and impugned consequential relieving order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure No.1 & 2 to the application) in so far as it relates to the applicant.
(ii) To issue order or direction for restraining the Respondent(s) to interfere in the peaceful working of the applicant on the post of PGT (Biology) in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar, Chandauli.
(iii) Issue an order or direction in the appropriate nature which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of the original application to the applicant."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed on 04.01.1993 on the post of Librarian and was posted at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Singrauli. On 22.10.1993, the applicant was promoted as TGT (Science) and was posted at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bokaro Thermal (Jharkhand) and served there till 10.04.2002. From 11.04.2002 to 23.04.2008, the applicant served at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Chandrapura (Jharkhand). The applicant was promoted on the post of PGT (Biology) on 24.04.2008 and was posted at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Meghahatupura (Jharkhand) and worked till 29.05.2008. From 31.05.2008 to 31.07.2013 the applicant worked at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rihandnagar U.P.) and on 01.08.2013 posted at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Chandauli till 13.09.2022. The applicant was transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Simdega (Jharkhand) about Page 2 of 5 OA No. 330/00880/2022 500/- k.m. away from his present post of posting during middle of the academic session in violation of transfer guidelines of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 2021. The applicant made a representation before Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 13.09.2022 with a prayer to cancel the transfer order dated 12.09.2022 and consequential relieving order dated 13.09.2022. All India Kendriya Vidyalaya Teachers' Association, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan also moved a representation dated 13.09.2022 before the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi for cancelling the above order. Many PGTs senior to the applicant and continuing in the same Station for longer then the applicant have not been disturbed. The above transfer and consequent relieving order have been done for the purpose of redistribution and rationalization of existing teaching staff in order to ensure at least 50% regular teaching staff made available in all Kendriya Vidyalaya across the country. The applicant has submitted that the above transfer order dated 12.09.2022 passed by Respondent No.3 and consequential relieving order dated 13.09.2022 should be quashed as the same is violative of transfer guidelines, without consideration of displacement count, violative of various office Memorandum issued by DOP&T, in identical circumstances the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench have granted the relief.
4. In their counter reply, the respondents have submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that transfer is not only Page 3 of 5 OA No. 330/00880/2022 incident of service but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. The post of employee is governed by the exigencies of service and executive instructions and has limited judicial review available to the employees. Court should not interfere with the transfer order which is made in the public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer order was made on the ground of malafide or in violation of mandatory/statutory rule which prohibits transfer. The KVS has identified around 237 KVs having less than 50% of regular teaching staff on its rolls and about 481 KVs having 80% or more regular teaching staff on its rolls in all over India on the basis of available vacancy. To remove the above imbalance a policy decision was taken by the KVS and based on the policy decision the present transfer has been effected in Public interest and non- Administrative exigency. There is no question of any malafide or vindictive transfer. They have cited various judgments of this Tribunal also in which the transfer dated 13.09.2022 has been upheld. During argument, learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted a judgment passed by this Tribunal in OA No.845 of 2022 along with other judgment attached in their counter reply.
5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record and came to the conclusion that the transfer of the applicant has been done on the ground of Administrative exigency and for the purpose of redistribution and rationalization of teaching staff in Page 4 of 5 OA No. 330/00880/2022 various KVs Schools. As teacher working in KVS is transferable to anywhere in India and public interest being above the personal inconvenience, the applicant has not established that his transfer is based on any malafide or vindictive action against him. Hence, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Mohan Pyare) Member (Administrative) RKM/ Page 5 of 5