Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

The Commissioner vs Kumbha Ram (2024:Rj-Jd:39799-Db) on 24 September, 2024

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2024:RJ-JD:39799-DB]                   (1 of 5)                          [CW-9880/2024]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                            JODHPUR
             D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9880/2024

1.     The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18,
       Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-
       110016.
2.     The Assistant Commissioner, (Estt.-2/3), Kendriya
       Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed
       Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi 110016.
3.     Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya Churu-33001.
                                                   ----Petitioners
                              Versus
Kumbha Ram S/o Late Shri Harchand Ram Prajapat, Resident Of
Vpo Bhaleri, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu-331304 (Rajasthan)
Presently Posted On The Post Of Primary Teacher, Kendriya
Vidyalaya, Churu-331001.
                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari a/w
                                   Mr. Yuvraj Singh
For Respondent(s)            :



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

24/09/2024

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by

the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Kendriya

Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Neeru Chadha (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.2684/2024) on 07.03.2024, which reads as follows:

1. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has erred in interfering in the matters of transfers and passing the impugned order dated 29.08.2023.

[2024:RJ-JD:39799-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-9880/2024]

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that en-masse transfers were resorted to by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (hereinafter referred to as 'KVS') in order to deal with the situation arising out of the surplus of teachers of particular subject in a specific region and non-availability of sufficient teachers of that subject in other regions/school.

3. Learned counsel submitted that though the order impugned disposing of the petitions filed by the respondents do not much concern the petitioners, but the observation that has been made, viz. while effecting fresh transfers, the petitioner-KVS shall abide by the transfer guidelines/policy, is likely to pose administrative problem(s) for the petitioner sangathan.

4. Learned counsel argued that the transfer guidelines are directory in nature and cannot be read as a statue and that they are simply guiding factor and it should be left open for the employer to deal with the situation arising within the institution, so as to ensure its functioning, more particularly when it deals with the education of children.

5. Learned counsel argued that the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi has dismissed similar original applications filed by the Association of the Teachers by a detailed judgment dated 27.03.2023 and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur which is later in point of time deserves to be quashed, being passed in ignorance of the order of Principal Bench.

6. While disposing the bunch of original applications, Principal Bench of the Tribunal, Delhi has observed thus:-

39. The averment by the counsel for the applicant Association that hurriedness in which

[2024:RJ-JD:39799-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-9880/2024]

the transfer order were first issued and then suspension of Clause- 6 of the Transfer Guidelines and Annual Transfers of Session 2022-23 were issue smacks of arbitrariness is not acceptable. It is mere clerical exercise as to issue Court No.6 (item No.09) and upload or couple of decisions taken on the same day. The mere sequence of issuing the orders should not attract arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. Moreover, it has been admitted by the applicant Association that the Association was priory consulted and there were discussion regarding the some lacuna regarding the data sets in respect of teaching staff. The respondents carried out a well- though-

out exercise identifying the KVs having 80% or more and 50 % less teaching staff vis-à-vis the sanctioned strength. Hence, effecting the redeployment of teaching staff as part of rationalization of their deployment service well the Public Interest of providing quality education to the students of the Kvs.

40. The Apex Court in series of judgments like Gujarat Electricity Board Vs Atmaram Sungomal Poshani (Supra), Union of India Vs S.L. Abbas (supra), Public Services Tribunal Bar Vs. State Of U.P. & Another(Supra), State of UP & Ors Vs Govardhan Lal (supra), Airport Authority of India Vs Rajeev Ratan Pandey and Ors (supra), Rajendra Singh & Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors(Supra) , State Of Haryana &Ors Vs Kashmir Singh & Ors (supra), Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors. Vs. Durgesh Court No.6 (item No.09) Kuwar (supra), Union of India and Others Vs. Ganesh Dass Singh (supra), has given upper hand to the administrative authorities or the Government in matters of Transfers. In all those judgments, the Apex Court held that the Public Interest is paramount in such administrative exercises and there is very limited scope for judicial review in the matters of transfer. As it has been held in the other set of judgments cited in paragarph 34 above, unless there is malafide, bias, infringement of statutory provisions, lack of competency, non-application of mind, etc, the courts and tribunals should not interfere in the administrative decision in respect of transfers. In

[2024:RJ-JD:39799-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-9880/2024]

the instant case, as we have already discussed above, we do not find any such bias or non- application of mind in the present case.

41. In view of the above, the OA lacks merit and hence dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, including the judgment of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, Delhi, we are not inclined to interfere in the order impugned, because as of now, the academic session is almost over and new session is about to commence from April, 2024 and the transfer orders have already been stayed by the separate orders passed by the learned Tribunal in each of the cases.

8. According to us, interfering at this stage (even if some case has been made out by Mr. Maheshwari) would adversely affect not only the position of the teachers concerned, but also academic activities of the institution and without interfering in this case, we would like to observe that though the petitioner - KVS shall be guided by the transfer policy, but in order to deal with special circumstances or a peculiar case, they will be permitted to take a detour by a fairly and uniformly applicable decision. The petitioner would thus, be free to pass transfer order(s), however, rationalization of subject and uniformity in implementation of the decision will have to be strictly adhered to.

9. With these observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

2. In light of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel

for the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of in light of and

[2024:RJ-JD:39799-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-9880/2024]

with the similar direction as given in the case of Kendriya

Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Neeru Chadha (supra).

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

3-devrajP/-