Naresh Singh Malik vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4240 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             Date of Decision: 21.10.2009

%                                 W.P. (C.) No.6531/2006

Naresh Singh Malik                                           .... Petitioner

                            Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate

                                       Versus

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.                                 .... Respondents

                            Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate


                                        AND

                                 W.P. (C.) No.10534/2006
Om Prakash                                                   .... Petitioner
                            Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate

                                       Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.                                 .... Respondents
                            Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be                     Yes
       allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                       No

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in                   No
       the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

*

1. The petitioners have impugned the orders passed in O.A.

No.2560/2005 and O.A. No.2561/2005 dismissing their petitions

against their transfer orders, transferring the petitioner, Shri Naresh

Singh Malik from Nand Nagri to West Jyoti Nagar and the petitioner

Shri Om Prakash from Government Co-Ed. School, East Gokulpur, Loni

Road to Government Senior Secondary School, Bawana.

2. The petitioners are the TGT teachers in the schools of Delhi

Administration. The allegation of the petitioners are that they had been

transferred frequently at the instances of and on account of the

malafides of respondent No.4, Deputy Director of Education, District

North East, Delhi.

3. The petitioners challenged their transfers and filed petition.

The petitions against their transfer were, however, dismissed by the

Tribunal holding that there was no recommendation or role of education

officer, respondent no.4 in the transfer of the petitioners, which had

been effected on account of the administrative exigencies by the Joint

Director of Education with his independent application of mind.

4. Regarding the plea of the petitioners that they were to be

posted near the place of their residence it was held that the transfer of

the petitioners near the place of their residence was dependent on the

availability of posts in the nearby schools as well as on other

administrative exigencies. The respondent had also contended that the

petitioners could be posted near their place of residence as per their

option after consideration of various factors, however, the petitioners do

not have an indefeasible right to be posted at a particular place.

5. The petitioners have impugned the orders of the Central

Administrative Tribunal dismissing their petition in the writ petitions

filed before this Court. This Court by the order dated 28th April, 2006

in W.P.(C) No.6531/2006 had stayed the transfer order of Sh. Naresh

Singh Malik. Transfer of Sh. Om Prakash was also stayed by this Court

by order dated 30th June, 2006. Consequent to the stay of transfer

orders, the petitioners are continuing in their present postings for more

than three years.

6. Learned counsels for the petitioners have contended that

respondent No.4, at whose instance the petitioners had been allegedly

transferred frequently, had since been transferred for past more than

one year. Consequently, the plea of the counsel for the petitioners that

they were transferred frequently at the instance of respondent no.4 has

only become academic. The apprehension of the petitioners that they

may be transferred frequently in future shall also not survive as the

respondent No.4 has already been transferred, even if the plea of

transfer at the instance of respondent no.4 is accepted. The petitioners

have also completed a tenure of more than 3 years and under the policy

they may be liable for transfer and if feasible near the place of their

residence.

7. In the circumstances, it will be just and appropriate for the

respondents to reconsider as to where the petitioners are to be

transferred. In the circumstances it will be desirable and required for

the respondent to reconsider their transfer order passed in 2005 and

pass the appropriate orders expeditiously in accordance with law. The

petitioners shall continue in their present postings till the fresh transfer

orders are passed by the respondents.

8. With these directions, the writ petitions are disposed off.

Parties are left to bear their own costs.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

OCTOBER 21, 2009                                        VIPIN SANGHI, J.
rsk