Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Smt Kavit Kharge vs Kvs on 29 September, 2022
OLA. No,voe/eoe2 Central Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench, Mumbai OA, Na.7g2/2022 Thirsday, 20° day of September... Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Mrs. Kavita Kharge Aged about 50 years W/o Suresh Kharge R/a Mariya Udyan, Sant Nagar, Lohegaon-qi1047 Email id:- [email protected] Mob 9604150157 Applicant (Mr. P.J. Prasadrao, Advocate) Versus. 1. The Commissioner 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-qooo7o. 3. The Principal Rendriva Vidyalaya AIR Force, Pune-411032. The Principal Kendriya Vidyalaya, Haveri, Karnataka-581110. - Respondents (Mr. V.S. Masurkar, Adveeate) ORDER(ORAL)
By way of the instant O.A., the applicant has challenged the inypugned transfer order dated 16.00.2022, whereby mass OLA, Novro2/2022 gransfer of 717 PRT teachers has been ordered by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) to different parts of the country.
The applicant, who is employed as PRT, has been transferred from KV No.1, AIR Force Station Pune to KV Haverl, Karnataka, She has also challenged the relieving order dated 17.09.2022.
>, tis submitted that the transfer has been made contrary to the transfer policy contained in Transfer Guidelines 2021 for teachers up to PGTs and others attributing to the following reasons:
(i) Administrative Ground Gi} For the purpose of rationalization Gil) 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 aveordanee with Article 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 a8 the Vidyalaya is having deficiency of teaching staff and contrary to the ibid Article.
Leos SRN i grt & erty a, OLA: No.792/2022 4, On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that according to the report published by NCERT in the chapter relating to KVS, it has been stated that during COVID-
classes were taking place in online mode, 54% of the ifs 2019, & students who participated In the survey reported facing difficulties in understanding and learning of content through on Tine 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 (inelusive of all cadres) are available in all KVs.
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 regtilar teaching staff on its rolls in all ever 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 20 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 ees ty, OLA, No.7g2/20e2 Tar saine Vidyalaya where she was serving and the same is Po te 4, sansa Ea pending with the respondents.
6 tis seen that mass transfers have taken place, transfer policy was kept in abeyance.on 12.09.2022 and transfer orders save been issued on 14.09.2022 and 16.09.2022. The transfer orders have been given effect to 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 without adequate determining principles also they seem to 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. THI then, the relieving order dated 17.09.2022 shall not be executed by GA. No.7o2/20e2 the respondents and she shall be allawed to continue Cis rts.
scharging her duties at KV No.1, AIR Force Station Pune.
§. With the aforesaid directions the OA stands disposed of.
There shall be no order on costs.
(Harvinder Kaur Oberai } Member (J)