Karnataka High Court
Sri Vijaydev M A S/O Late Siddaiah vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi on 5 July, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.S Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE s"'nAy or JULY, 2019 g'.
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MAnqfiEATEf~_
THE HON'BLE MR. JUsTIcE°s[s.9AT:L:I:
WRIT PETITION No.1292d}éb10 (gWC§T§
BETWEEN:
Vijaydev M.A., B.Ed., I .
S/o late Siddaiah,'56 yeéfsg
Jawahar NavodayaJVidyalaya,"
Shivaragudda, Medea: Tq-¢_*,
Mandya Dist. 3 g"; 'Ȣ"ip"~T 1
Presently under oidexs of transfer to
Jhabua (Madhya"P:adesh}_*Q
PETITIONER
(By Advocate srI,E L Asgdk for
_ Sr1}K;Sreedhar Assts.)
AND . I 'I A. ..... .. V
1.Na§ooaye'Vi@ye1eye Samithi,
.. Minxstryflof.Eumafi"Resources Development,
";__28, Kailash Colony,
Vj_New De1h1.AI
j"2{fioio£TCommiSeioner (PERS)
I=TNavodayagVidya1aya Samithi,
f, 3-28;VKailash Colony,
'jNew'De1h1.
6/I
f\J
3.Deputy Commissioner,
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi,
Hyderabad Region,
No.1--1--10/3m S.9.Road,
Secunderabad.
4. The Asst. Commissioner (Personnel),
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi,
Hyderabad Region,
No.1--1--10/3, S.P.Road, «V--e ,*. 2 ,=,'.
Secunderabad. .*,_ V,; .*R;spoNpENTsV
This Writ Petition is_":y'fi1«,edi--u.nde.r".Arts.226 5. 227 of
The Constitution of India to set aside the order dated
16.12.2009 in OA ,»':o.179._10_9. 'pegged the Central
Administrative Tribunal, :Bangalore;flvide'.Annexure--A. and
grant the prayer made in the said 0.A. '
This Petition is poming on fdr preliminary hearing
this day, MAMJUNATH J. made the following:
dhhegality and correotness of the order passed by the
'Central Adninistrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in GA
'L~:c'3*.~1.79 &'»..,,2a3.!20,0§ passed on 15.12.2009 is called in
wquestion in this writ petition.
'"*f_r2f, Facts leading to this case are as hereunder:
('V
Petitioner was appointed as a trained graduate
teacher in Kannada in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi at
fiarooqabad of UP State, Lucknow Region on" ?fE,1389.
Thereafter, at his request hewggsted to his*nati§e_Statei*
(State of' Karnataka) and. working; at&,NavodayadfiSchool,i
Shivaragudda, Mandya District apursuant to gthe larder
dated 27.7.1995. Considering the need cf his services
in the State of Madhya firadesh, he has been transferred
to Madhya Pradesh iStatefi"hyp §;sg§é,p§£d the order of
transfer dated filaffiéoe and he fies relieved from the
duty from Shivaragufias figgifi; ?}§é zoos. Challenging
the legalitfi and correctness of the order of transfer,
he approached" the iéentrald Administrative Tribunal,
Bangalore Hench by filing Original Application No.230/G8
which was withdrawn later on the ground that he would
igive a representation. Accordingly, earlier application
came rto Be" dismissed. Later on, representation
=rsubnitted*rpyN the petitioner came to be rejected,
'""?'..__:the,xe£--o£;§'oA.A.179/99 and 263/09 came to be filed by the
.uipatitioner. The tribunal has rejected the contention of
5/.
the petitioner on the ground that the appointment of
petitioner is subject to All India Transfer liability
and there was no impediment for the employer gt-:5
the petitioner to Jhabua in Madhya Pradesh._a_nd5:a1s_o
to the conclusion that he had wori1_:ced,.:_45-«Ti in'<.,._ V
Maddur Taluk from 1995 as he has séryed the ihétigfifiion
for more than 12 and half he was
transferred to Madhya with the
transfer policy of tribunal also
came to the urged by the
petitioner thatjv,pe_titioneri:'~':.'iK1annotg be posted to Madhya
Pradesh on the= groVi§rid:p4't.h"a1;:""'he'had crossed 50 years of
age and that heflcannwot posted to north-east region on
the v¢'..ground}la that tlransfez: policy exempting teachers of
moreV".than--» ye'ar's__ to north-east region cannot be made
Zfapplicablde'-.l'tvo'Ri':he'p:=hVVpetitioner's case since he has been
transferread the State of Madhya Pradesh which is not
sitiiatted 'iwgithin northweastern region. Accordingly,
2 came to be rejected. Challenging the same,
llpresent petition is filed.
8%
6
its finding on the ground that the order of transfer of
petitioner is not contrary to transfer po3.5.cygTé:~.f the
respondents.
5. In 'view of the above discussion, we i3reQ'of 'the", opinion that the tribunal has not comitted any error in} order to interfere with the weiléconsidered order pf the tribunal.
6. Accordingly, there is no merits in this petition,