UNION OF INDIA Vs. V SURESH BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent was appointed as Work Experience Teacher in the Kendriya Vidyalaya (in short 'kv'), Ooty on 2. 7. 1988 and thereafter he was transferred to KV, Sulur in Coimbatore, from where he was transferred to Pondicherry and at his request, he was transferred to KV, Meenambakkam, Chennai on 28. 6. 2003, but within 1= years, he was transferred to KV, Karaikudi, on ground of surplus, by order dated 31. 8. 2004. Thereafter, the first respondent submitted a representation for his transfer on 26. 10. 2005 and after a vacancy had arisen in KV, Ashok Nagar, Chennai, he had submitted another representation on 27. 2. 2006 and also submitted an application, in the prescribed format, on 5. 5. 2006, seeking transfer to KV, Ashok Nagar, Chennai, explaining his family circumstances. But, since his claim was not considered by the officials and since the second respondent was transferred from KV, Dhonimalai to KV, Ashok Nagar, Chennai by the proceedings dated 14. 7. 2006, the first respondent has filed O. A. No. 589 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, praying to set aside the said transfer order of the second respondent, dated 14. 7. 2006 and to direct the respondents therein to post him in KV, Ashok Nagar, Chennai.

(2.) THE case of the first respondent herein, who is the applicant before the Tribunal is that even at the time when he was declared surplus in KV, Meenambakkam, a vacancy was existing in KV, Pondicherry-II and instead of transferring him to KV, Pondicherry-II, he was posted at Karaikudi, contrary to Rule 6 (b) (1) (a) of the Transfer Guidelines of the year 2004. The applicant would rely on Rule 7 (3) of the Transfer Guidelines of the year 2006, which provide that when a teacher is transferred from one KV to another KV on surplus grounds, the said teacher shall be reposted against a vacancy on superannuation from the place where he was transferred. In spite of such specific Transfer Guidelines, his claim was not considered. Instead, a teacher by name Mrs. Kalpana was posted to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pondicherry-II on her request from KV, Kalpakkam, even though she had very less priority for KV, Pondicherry-II, however, the applicant has not challenged the said order as a principle of not approaching the Court for any type of cases, which cannot be taken advantage by the officials. The applicant would attribute malafides to the officials on ground that they are destined to deny his claim even at the cost of the transfer guidelines.

(3.) THE claim of the applicant was opposed by the respondents therein, by filing a counter, wherein they have stated that since the applicant was declared surplus to the requirement of KV, Meenambakkam, he was transferred to Karaikudi, which is not a far off place and was adjusted/redeployed in the nearest available vacancy within the same region viz. KV, Karaikudi. It is also stated that the applicant is liable for transfer anywhere in India, in terms of Article 71 (1) of the Education Code and as per the basic principles stated in the transfer guidelines in Para No. 1. 1. It is further contended that the vacancy arose in KV-II, Pondicherry was filled by one Mrs. Kalpana, Work Experience Teacher, KV, Kalpakkam in terms of clause 18 (b) of the then transfer guidelines and as per the provisions of clause 18 (b), Commissioner, KVS was fully empowered to order for a transfer of any teacher in deviation from the transfer guidelines with the approval of the Chairman, KVS and therefore, the vacancy arose in KV-II, Pondicherry was not filled by the applicant, but however, the applicant was transferred to a place, which is not far away from Pondicherry.