Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Vipin Kumar Maurya Aged About 38 Years ... vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 21 November, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow Original Application No. 468/2013 This the 21st day of November, 2013 Honble Sri Navneet Kumar , Member (J) Honble Ms. Jayati Chandra, Member (A) Vipin Kumar Maurya aged about 38 years son of Sri Bhawani Prasad Maurya r/o II/4, Kendriya Vidyalaya IIM Campus, Prabandh Nagar, Lucknow. Applicant By Advocate: Sri R.C. Saxena Versus 1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, through its Commissioner, 18 Industrial Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110016. 2. Commissioner, 18 Industrial Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110016. 3. Principal , K.V. IIM, Prabandh Nagar, Off-Sitapur Road, Lucknow. 4. Sri Mahesh Kumar Shukla, TGT (work experience) KV, IIM, Lucknow. Respondents By Advocate: Sri Surendra P (Reserved on 13.11.2013 ) ORDER
BY HONBLE SRI NAVNEET KUMAR, MEMBER (J) The present Original Application is preferred by the applicant u/s 19 of the AT Act, with the following reliefs:-
The Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned transfer order dated 30.9.2013 , passed by respondent No.2 contained in Annexure No.1, transferring the respondent N.4 from K.V. Tengavalley to K.V. IIM, Lucknow and further quashed the most arbitrary and malafide transfer of the applicant displacing him and posting him at K.V. Tengavalley vide transfer order dated 30.9.2013 passed by respondent No. 2 contained in Annexure No.2 which has not been passed in public interest in bonafide exercise of powers. The Honble Tribunal may further be pleased to also quashed the relieving order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the respondent No. 3 , contained in Annexure No.3 which is the consequential order and after declaring the aforesaid relieving order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the respondent No. 3, contained in Annexure No. 3 which is the consequential order and after declaring the aforesaid impugned orders as illegal and void, the respondent No. 2 may be directed to pay salary and allowances for the entire period from the date of passing of the impugned order dated 30.9.2013 till the date of applicant is allowed to resume duty and allow the O.A. with all consequential service benefits to the applicant or any other relief which may be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be allowed in favour of the applicant.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant argued the matter at length on interim relief and when the Tribunal declining in granting any interim relief in the case, the learned counsel for applicant submitted that the matter maybe disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection in regard to disposal of the case at the admission stage, as such both the Ld. counsel for parties were heard at admission stage at length and reserved for orders.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was directly selected and appointed to the post of TGT in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (in short KVS) and was posted at Kendriya Vidyalaya Dhar, Fort Campus, Chankyapuri, District- Dhar, M.P. in1997 where he worked from 13.11.1997 to 1.9.2003 and thereafter, in 2003, the applicant was transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Nepa Nagar, M.P. where he joined on 4.9.2003 and continued to work upto 6.3.2007. Learned counsel for applicant has also pointed out that the applicant was thereafter transferred to Manipur which is a North East Hard Station where he continued upto 21.8.2007 and while he was posted at Manipur, he made a request for transfer and was transferred back from Manipur to M.P. again, where he joined on 23.8.2007 and continued upto 30th June,2010. The learned counsel for applicant has also pointed out and argued that since the applicant successfully completed his tenure of 3 years at a Hard Station, Jhabua, M.P., requested for his transfer and posting at his own choice of places. Accordingly, the applicant was transferred and posted to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bakshi Ka Talab, AFS, Lucknow , U.P. where he joined on 3.7.2010 and remained posted upto 20th July, 2010. Subsequently, the said transfer was modified and the applicant was posted to Kendriya Vidyalaya, IIM, Lucknow. Where he joined on 21.7.2010 and continued upto passing of relieving order dated 10.10.2013.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has also pointed out that the employees , teachers and principals of the Kendriya Vidyalaya are governed by the Transfer Guidelines issued by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. An education Code has also been framed which provides rules and regulations for the Kendriya Vidyalaya and the Board of Governors has subsequently approved the same. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant has also categorically pointed out that the respondent No. 2 acted in a malafided manner to adjust Sri Mahesh Kumar who is respondent No.4 in the present O.A. and transferred the applicant from IIM, Lucknow to Tengavalley in public interest with immediate effect. It is also pointed out on behalf of the applicant that since the applicant was posted at Jhabua, M.P. for a period of 3 years which he claims to be a hard station as such, he is entitled to be posted at his choice station after completion of 3 years posting at a hard station. Not only this, the paragraph 6 of the transfer guide-lines which provides for factors, points and calculation of displacement count of an employee for displacement transfer. The learned counsel for applicant Sri R.C. Saxena pointed out that the applicant was also awarded a National Incentive Award in2013 and the name of the applicant has also been mentioned in the said list. Apart from this, it is also argued on behalf of the applicant that before passing the order of transfer, no opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant and there are four posts lying vacant, two at Shahjahanpur and two at Sitapur for which the applicant has already made a representation but before disposal of the representation, the respondents relieved the applicant however his request is duly forwarded by the competent authority to the higher authority. Learned counsel for applicant has also relied upon the two decisions of the Honble High court:_
1. Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2004 (22) LCD 1472.
2. Ram Baran Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2004 (22) LCD 1656.
and pointed out that if the transfer order is passed for extraneous consideration, the same cannot be said to have been passed.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has taken us to para 13 of the transfer guidelines which provides for Power of Relaxation of Guidelines and also pointed out that the Commissioner with the approval of the Chairman, KVS shall be the sole competent authority to transfer any employee to any place in relaxation of any or all of the above provision. It is also mentioned on behalf of the respondents that the respondent No. 4 who is transferred from Tengavalley to IIM, Lucknow has already joined on 10.10.2013 and there is no additional post available in IIM Lucknow where the applicant can be adjusted and the applicant also stands relieved on 10.10.2013. It is also pointed out by the learned for the respondents that he dont have any instruction that the applicant has submitted any leave application after 10.10.2013 i.e. the date of his relieving . The learned counsel for the respondents has taken us to the Education Code and he has also pointed out that the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is an Autonomous body set up by the Ministry of Education ,Govt. of India and registered as a Society, under the Society Registration Act, 1986. The respondents have also indicated the objectives of the Sangathan and for the functioning of the Sangathan, a Board of Governors has been constituted as well as Education Code has been framed which provides rules and regulations for the Kendriya Vidyalaya, and the Board of Governors has subsequently approved the same. He has taken us to the certain provisions of the aforesaid Education Code which provides that the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is liable to be transferred any where in India. Apart from this , it is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that after serving at the hard station tenure of 3 years from 2007 till June 2010, the applicant was given the choice posting at Lucknow on 3.7.2010 and after completing the period of three years, he has again been transferred from Lucknow.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Admittedly, the applicant jointed the respondents organization as TGT and posted at Dhar in M.P. in 1997 where he continued for a period of about 6 years and thereafter he was transferred in the M.P. itself and where he remained upto 2007. The applicant was transferred from M.P. to Manipur vide order dated 10.3.2007 and after making a request , he was transferred back to Jhabua , M.P. as such, the applicant remained posted at Manipur from 10.3.2007 till 21.8.2007 i.e. for a period of 5 months only. It is to be pointed out that the applicant was posted at KVS, Jhabua , M.P. where he joined on 23.8.2007 and remained continued upto 31.6.2010 i.e. a period little less than 3 years. Though, the list of hard stations is not annexed by the learned counsel for applicant but during the course of arguments, the leaned counsel for applicant has placed a list, wherein the Jhabua is show as a a hard station, as such, after completing three years, the applicant was transferred to Kendiya Vidyalaya, Bakshi Ka Talab, AFS, Lucknow where he joined on 3.7.2010 and remained posted upto 20.7.2010 and subsequently, he was shifted from Bakashi Ka Talab Lucknow to IIM , Lucknow where the applicant joined on 21.7.2010 and continued upto 30th September, 2013 i.e. for a period of more than 3 years and was stand relieved by means of order dated 10.10.2013. The learned counsel for applicant in his representation dated 1.10.2013 has taken a ground that after completing hard station tenure of 3 years, he was required to be given a choice station and accordingly he got his native State and after serving Kendriya Vidyalaya for about 13 years, he was given posting at Lucknow.
Apart from this, the learned counsel for applicant has also pointed out in his representation that after getting outstanding grade in APAR for two consecutive years 2010-11 , 2011-12, applicant has received the Regional Incentive Award and since the applicants having two daughters aged about 10 years and 8 years, it will be very difficult for him to go to North East once again and struggle with health hazards and as per the averments made by the learned counsel for the applicant two vacancies at Shahjahanpur and two vacancies at Sitapur are lying vacant and the applicant can very well be adjusted at any of these two places.
8. The Education Code has been framed, which provides rules and regulations for the Kendriya Vidyalaya which was approved by the Board of Governors and the same is applicable on the persons working on the post of officer, staff (teaching and non-teaching) of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and they are liable to be transferred and is having all India transfer liability. Article 71(1.1) of Education Code is the relevant clause which reads as under:-
That the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is liable to be transferred any where in India.
9. Para 1 of transfer guidelines for teachers upto PGTs clearly provides as under:-
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan shall active strive to maintain equitable distribution of its employees across all locations to ensure efficient functioning of the organization and optimize job satisfaction amongst employees. All employees are liable to be transferred anywhere in India at any point in time and transfer and to a desired location cant be claimed as a matter of right. While effecting transfers the organizational interest shall be given uppermost consideration and that the problems constraints of employees shall remain subservient.
10. According to Article 71(1.1) of the Education Code, employees of KendriyaVidyalaya are liable to be transferred any where in India. The ground taken by the applicant in regard to that he has already served hard station, as such he should be adjusted at a place of his choice cannot be accepted since after serving at hard station upto 2010, he was given a choice station in 2010 and remained posted for a period of 3 years . The respondents have issued transfer guidelines but these guidelines are not mandatory in nature and they are only meant to facilitate the respondents to act upon. As observed by the Honble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. S. S. Kourav, the Courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. The Honble Apex Court has further pleased to observe as under:-
The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. When, as in this case, the transfer order is issued on administrative grounds the Court cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place.
11. Be that as it may the transfer is an incident of service and no one can claim to remain posted at particular station for ever. In the instant case, the applicant joined the Kendriya Vidyalaya in 1997 and he was posted at Lucknow in2010 and remained here for a period of 3 years and he was further transferred. The ratio of the judgment in Jai Prakash (supra)relied upon by the learned counsel for applicant is that if the transfer order is passed for extraneous consideration, the same cannot be said to have been passed bona fide or in public interest, but in the instant case, there appears to be no such extraneous consideration since the applicant remained posted in Lucknow approximately for a period of 3 years after serving at the hard station. The another decision in the case of Ram Baran (supra) , the Honble High Court has been pleased to observe that the transfer made on public consideration cannot be legally sustainable. In the present case, no such ground is taken by the learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned order is passed on political interference. As such, with utmost respect to the Honble High Court, the Judgment relied upon by the applicant are is not applicable in the instant O.A.
12. Learned counsel for respondents has relied upon decision of this Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 362/2012 (BashishtNarain Singh Vs. UOI) wherein the Tribunal has considered the following cases of Honble Apex Court :-
i) Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar , 1991 SC 532
ii) Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas AIR 1993 SC 2444
iii) SomeshTiwari Vs. Union of India and others (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 592
iv) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (2009) INSC 1351 (31st July, 2009)
v) National Hydroelectric Power Vs. Sri Bhagwan (11th September 2001) [Appeal (Civil) 1095-1096 of 2001] .
13. Apart from this, the learned counsel for respondents has also relied upon the decision of the Honble Apex Court passed in the following cases:-
i) State of Haryana Vs. Kashmir Singh, 2010 (13) SCC 306
ii) Registrar, High Court of Madras Vs. R. Perachi , 2011 (12) SCC 137.
14. The Honble Apex court not only in one but in number of cases such as in the case of B. Vardharao Vs. State of Karnataka , AIR 1986 SC 1955, Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar , (1991) SC 532, Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas AIR 1993 SC 2444, has been pleased to observe that the transfer is an incidence of service and the courts should not normally interfere with it unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of statutory provisions. Apart form this, it is also observed by the Honble Apex Court that the court should not interfere with the purely administrative matters like transfer and postings except it is warranted and is passed against the statutory provisions.
15. In the case of National Hydroelectric (supra), the Honble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that Govt. servant has no vested legal right to be remained posted forever on a particular place.
16. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. GovardhanLal reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402, it is observed by the Honble Apex Court that transfer of employee is purely discretion of the authority and court should not interfere in it except :-
i) malafide is shown
ii) in violation of statutory rules;
iii) passed by authority not competent
17. As can be seen that the impugned transfer order is neither passed in any malafide intention nor it has been passed against statutory provisions because the applicant has already served at Lucknow for a period of 3 years, if we take Jhabua, M.P. as a hard station and after serving for a period of 3 years, he has been transferred. Not only this, as per transfer guidelines, all employees are liable to be transferred and are having all India transfer liability.
18. The Honble Apex Court in the case of S.L. Abbas (supra) has been pleased to observe as under:-
7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right. An order of transfer is an incident of Government service. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The same guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right. Executive instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force.
19. Further, the Honble Apex Court in the case of Shilpi Bose(Mrs.) (supra) has been pleased to observe as under:-
4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders. The courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of malafide . A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order; instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.
20. A Division Bench of the Honble Mumbai High Court in S.N. Umap v. State of Maharashtra (Bom.) reported in 1984 (2) SLR 328 has held as under:-
It is an accepted principle that in public service transfer is an incident of service. It is also an implied condition of service and appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter. The Government is the best Judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of it employees. However, this power must be exercised honestly, bonafide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount o mala fide and colourable exercise of power. Frequent transfers, without sufficient reasons to justify such transfer, cannot, but be held as mala fide. A transfer is mala fide when it is made not for professed purpose, such an in normal course or other purpose, that is to accommodate another person for undisclosed reasons. It is the basic principle of rule of law and good administration, that even the administrative actions should be just and fair. Frequent unscheduled and unreasonable transfers can uproot a family, cause irreparable harm to the employee and drive him to desperation. It disrupts the education of the children and leads to numerous other inconveniences and problems and results in hardship and demoralization. Therefore, the policy of transfer should be reasonable and fair and should apply to everybody equally.
21. In another judgment in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited v. Sri Bhagwan& Another (supra) this was again observed by the Honble Apex Court that scope of judicial review in transfer of an employee is not warranted and the transfer is not only an incident but a condition of service and it should not be interfered with unless shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provisions otherwise transfer order is not subject to judicial interference as a matter of routine. It is also observed by the Honble Apex Court that no Government servant or employee or public undertaking has any legal right to be posted for long at any one particular place. The Honble Apex Court further observed as under:-
No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned.
22. The Honble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. & Others v. GobardhanLal (Supra) also observed that:
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.
23. The case of Rajendra Singh & Others v. State of U.P & Others (supra), it has been observed by the Honble Apex Court that the scope of judicial review in transfer matters is very limited and the courts are always reluctant to interfere with transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from malafide. The Honble Apex Court further observed as under:-
9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar this Court held:
4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.
10. In N.K. Singh v. Union of India this Court reiterated that :
6the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a government servant to an equivalent post without any adverse consequence on the service or career prospects is very limited being confined only to the grounds of mala fides and violation of any specific provision..
24. In the case of State of Haryana &Ors. v. Kashmir Singh & Another (supra) the Honble Supreme Court emphasized in regard to the judicial review in transfer matters. It has been observed that it is a policy matter which is purely an administrative matter and in transfer and posting the scope of interference by the courts is very limited. The Honble Apex Court further observed that the State Administration cannot function with its hands tied by judiciary behind its back. The Honble Apex Court while deciding the issue of transfer has been pleased to observe as under :-
12. Transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service, and the courts should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders as long as they are not clearly illegal. In particular, we are of the opinion that transfer and postings of policemen must be left in the discretion of the State authorities concerned which are in the best position to assess the necessities of the administrative requirements of the situation. The administrative authorities concerned may be of the opinion that more policemen are required in any particular district and/or another range than in another, depending upon their assessment of the law and order situation and/or other considerations. These are purely administrative matters, and it is well settled that courts must not ordinarily interfere in administrative matters and should maintain judicial restraint, vide Tata Cellular v. Union of India.
25. The bare perusal of the aforesaid observations of the Honble Apex Court is absolutely clear that the transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service and the courts should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders as long as they are not clearly illegal. Apart from this, as observed by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Aravali Gold Club Vs. Chander Hass reported in (2008) 1 SCC 683 and in the case of Common cause Vs. Union of India reported in (2008) 5 SCC 511, that judges must observe judicial restraint and must not ordinarily encroach into the domain of the legislature or the executive. Undoubtedly, the transfer is domain of an executive and it should only be interfered with where absolutely necessary on account of violation of any fundamental or other legal right of the citizen. The State administration cannot function with its hands tied by judiciary behind its back.
26. In the instant case, since the applicant is having an All India transfer liability and has already completed 3 years in Lucknow and there is no specific violation of statutory rules or guidelines, as such the ground taken by the applicant for quashing the impugned transfer order dated 30th September, 2013, transferring the applicant from Kendriya Vidyalaya , IIM, Lucknow to Tengavalley as well as the order dated 30th September, 2013,trasnsferring the respondent No. 4 from Tengavalley to Kendriya Vidyalaya, IIM, Lucknow as well as the relieving order dated 10.10.2013 does not require any interference. Since the respondent No. 4 has already joined at his transferred placed and applicant has already stood relieved to join at his new place of posting, as such passing any order and interfering in the transfer order of respondent No. 4 at this stage appears to be not unjustified.
27. Accordingly, the O.A.is fit to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, it will be open to the respondents to consider the applicants representation dated 1.10.2013 submitted for modification of his transfer order and in case, there is a vacancy at Shahjahanpur or at Sitapur as mentioned by the applicant, the same may be considered in accordance with law and rules and also keeping the exigency of service.
28. With the above observations , the O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Jayati Chandra) (Navneet Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) HLS/-