SANTHOSH.B. Vs. SREEJITH S.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, which directed the 1st respondent to be given the transfer to the Calicut, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan [for brevity, 'the KVS']. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer now sought for by the petitioner and the 1st respondent is under a 'No Taker Vacancy'. This refers to a vacancy which remained after the general transfers for reason of the transferred person having not accepted it, which has a different priority insofar as there being more than one employee seeking a transfer to the same post. We need not go into the general transfer policy at all. The 'No Taker Vacancy' policy is clear from Annexure A7, Exts.P4 and P8.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P8 to specifically contend that only in cases of transfer of persons, whose spouse is also working in the KVS, there could be a priority granted insofar as a 'No Taker Vacancy'. Though the said stipulation is not available in Annexure A7 and Ext.P4, it is the submission that this is the only interpretation that is possible on reading the entire Clause (iii) as seen from Ext.P7 in Ext.P1. The learned Standing Counsel for the KVS also supports the plea of the petitioner, since he is admittedly senior to the 1st respondent.

(3.) On the bare facts needed to be noted, we say that the petitioner is admittedly senior to the 1st respondent in the service with KVS. However, the 'No Taker Vacancy' has to be looked at on the specific policy as propounded in Exts.P1 and P4. We also have to take into consideration the specific contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent that Ext.P8 being of the year 2019 is not applicable to the subject transfer, which is of the year 2017.