KHOIROM
Digitally signed by
KHOIROM
BIPINCHAN
BIPINCHANDRA SINGH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Date: 2024.02.29
DRA SINGH
17:12:49 +05'30'
AT IMPHAL
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023
Smt. Aribam Sobita Devi, aged about 49 years, wife of Shri
Bikramjit Sharma, resident of Nongmeibung Purana Rajbari I,
–
P.O. & P.S. Porompat, District Imphal East, Manipur
– –
795005 and working as TGT Hindi at Jawahar Navodaya
–
Vidyalaya, Ukhrul, Manipur, Pin 795 142.
–
…. Petitioner
- Versus -
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Government
of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Now
Ministry of Education), Department of Education, New Delhi
110 001.
–
2. The Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samity, B 15,
–
Instructional Area, Sector 62, Noida, Gautam Budha
–
Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 201 309.
–
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,
Regional Office, Temple Road, Barik Point, Lachumiere,
Shillong 793 001.
–
4. Smt. Khoibam Jerina, aged about 44 years, wife of Shri
Takhellambam Ibomacha Singh, resident of Singjamei
Mayengbam Leikai, Imphal West 795001 and working as
–
TGT Hindi Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Chandel,
–
Manipur, Pin 795 008.
–
…. Respondents
B E F O R E
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON’BLE
S. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU
HON’BLE MR
For the petitioner : Mr. M. Rarry, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. Kh. Samarjit, DSGI
Mr. M. Gunedhor, Advocate
Date of hearing : 18.12.2023
Date of order : 29.02.2024
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 1
JUDGMENT &ORDER
(CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. M. Rarry, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned DSGI appearing on behalf of the
respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. M. Gunedhor, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent No. 4.
[2] The instant writ petition has been instituted on behalf of Smt.
Aribam Sobita Devi under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with
the following prayer :
a writ of certiorari or a writ in nature of certiorari or an
“Issuance of
appropriate writ/direction(s)/order(s) to set aside and quash
–
(a) the final order dated 27.04.2023 in Original Application
No. 042/00207/2021 passed by the Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench;
(b) the Office Order bearing F. No. 07-
23/2021/NVS/ESTT-II (ATD 20 21)/7083 dated
– –
10.05.2023 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Pers.),
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Ministry of Education,
Government of India.
”
[3] The factual prism, as put forth by the petitioner are that the
petitioner herein was the respondent no.4 in O.A. No. 042/00207/2021 and
the present respondent no.4 is the petitioner in the said O.A. The
Hon’ble
CAT, Guwahati Bench, vide impugned final order dated 27.04.2023 in O.A.
No. 042/00207/2021 disposed the said O.A. by allowing the said O.A. in an
illegal and perverse manner in favour of private respondent No. 4, with a
direction to the respondent No. 2 and 3 to consider the case of the private
respondent No. 4 for transfer to JNV Bishnupur (Manipur) under the eligible
condition of Transfer Conditions of 2021 as well as on the security principles
of Transfer Conditions of 2012 , without considering at all the pleadings and
submissions of the present petitioner as well as the official respondents as
pleaded in their written statements and arguments addressed on the said
grounds. Consequently, the impugned office order dated 10.05.2023 has
been issued by official respondent stated to be in compliance of the said
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 2
illegal and perverse impugned order dated 27.04.2023. Accordingly, the
present writ petition is filed on the grounds submitted below with a prayer
for passing interim stay of the said two impugned orders in the interest of
justice.
[4] The grounds taken herein by the petitioner are:
(a)
The Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in law and facts in totally
overlooking in the malafide conduct of the respondent No. 4 in
suppressing facts and concealing material facts and documents
since the filing of an earlier Original Application bearing O.A.
No. 042/00163/2021 before CAT, Guwahati on 15.07.2021 to
challenge only the proposed transfer list dated 22.06.2021
(Round 2) of ATD 2020-2021 by deliberately concealing the
already published final transfer list dated 01.07.2021 when the
said O.A. No. 163 of 2021 was filed on 15.07.2021 solely to
mispresent before the Hon’ble Tribunal to obtain an order of
stay of the transfer process relating to the present petitioner
and which would have been rejected at the threshold, in the
event the final transfer list was disclosed with honesty, as
mandated in law.
(b)
The Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in law and facts in totally
overlooking the pleadings of the petitioner that without serving
copy of the said O.A. No. 163 of 2021 to the present petitioner
or without issuing Court notice or giving opportunity of being
heard, a so called innocuous order dated 16.07.2021 was
hati without going in to the
passed by Hon’ble CAT, Guwa
merits of the said case to dispose the pending representation
dated 06.07.2021 submitted by respondent No. 4. In the said
order dated 16.07.2021, the Commissioner, NVS was directed
to take a decision within 4 (four) months in respect of the said
representation dated 06.07.2021 by passing a speaking order
and till such time, the case of the petitioner and respondent
No. 4 was directed not to be given effect to by making an
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 3
illegal and perverse observation till such so far the case of the
respondent No. 4 shall not be given effect to.
(c)
The Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in law and facts in totally
overlooking the pleadings on record in the present subject O.A.
No. 042/00207/2021 that the present petitioner had challenged
the said illegal and pe
rverse Hon’ble CAT, Guwahati Bench final
order dated 16.07.2021 by filing W.P.(C) No. 496 of 2021
before this High Court, wherein an interim order dated
12.08.2021 was passed by this High Court in W.P.(C) No. 496
of 2021 inter alia as under :
accordingly be interim suspension of the
“There shall
order dated 16.07.2021 passed in Original Application No.
042/00163/2021 till the next date of hearing. Post on
28.09.2021.”
Further, it is the case of the petitioner that
consequently, the Hon’ble CAT, Guwahati Bench order dated
16.07.2021 was rendered ineffective and non-operational since
12.08.2021 and the said suspension of the Hon’ble Tribunal
order continued till 14.12.2021, when a final Court order dated
14.12.2021 was passed by this High Court with the observation
that the Commissioner, NVS having now passed a speaking
order dated 16.08.2021 disposing of the representation dated
06.07.2021 submitted by the respondent No. 4 in favour of the
present petitioner, the said petition was closed in favour of the
present petitioner.
The Ld. Tribunal has totally overlooked this legal plea
and also the submission of the petitioner that the
Commissioner, NVS was also legally bound to ensure that the
petitioner was allowed to join her new posting at JNV,
Bishnupur consequent upon her selection as on 12.08.2021,
when this High Court had vacated the stay order of the CAT,
Guwahati. However for unknown reason, the same was not
done till 14.12.2021, in an illegal and perverse manner.
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 4
(d)
The Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in law and facts in totally
overlooking the admitted fact on record of the present O.A. No.
042/00207/2021 that this application also only filed seeking “to
set aside and
quash the proposed transfer list” and not the
subsequent final transfer list.
The said application also prayed for setting aside and
quashing the impugned rejection order No. F.No. 7-23/2021-
NVS(Estt-II)/8455, dated 16.08.2021 without pleading how the
said order is bad in law being issued based on subsequent
transfer guidelines, 2021.
With further prayer for directing the official respondents
to consider the respondent No. 4 case strictly basing on the
guidelines issued by NVS in Clause No. 9(1)(C) of Transfer
Policy, 2012 is also bad in law as the said Transfer Policy, 2012
has already been subsequently superseded, modified and
eclipsed by the Transfer Policy, 2021 and in respect of how
Transfer Policy, 2021 has been violated has not been pleaded
at all in the preset O.A. by respondent No. 4.
(e)
The Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in law and facts in totally
erroneously allowing the prayer made in the said O.A. No.
042/00207/2021 without considering any of the pleadings and
submissions made by official respondent NVS nor by the
present petitioner, while passing the illegal and perverse order
dated 27.04.2023.
(f)
The Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in law and facts in failing
to correctly appreciate the respondent No. 4 has chosen to
solely rely upon Clause No. 9(1)(C) of the Transfer Policy, 2012
while the impugned order at Para No. 6 mentions “As per
Transfer Policy, 2021, the applicant, Smt. Khoibam Jerina has
already done three years in her current posting and thus falls in
the category of eligible.
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 5
It is further asserted that the respondent No. 4 in the
O.A. has not at all referred/not disclosed about the existence of
Transfer Policy, 2021 to claim the relief in the said O.A. No. 207
of 2021. Apparently, respondent No. 4 has only relied upon
Transfer Policy, 2012 and which Transfer Policy, 2012 has in
fact been already modified and superseded. The Hon’ble
Tribunal has erroneously relied upon both the Hon’ble Tribunal
is totally contrary to settled law of land and is illegal and
perverse, per se and not sustainable in law.
(g)
The Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in law and facts in totally
overlooking and not even making an attempt to appreciate that
in the introduction of Transfer Policy, 2021, it itself mentions
that the transfer system in NVS is governed by a well defined
“Transfer Policy” and subsequent guidelines/clarifications which
were issued from time to time with a view to facilitate the
employees avail transfer with utmost transparency and
accuracy.
Apparently, the respondent No. 4 had simply chosen to
ignore all the subsequent guidelines/clarifications which were
issued from time to time by NVS, while malafidely seeking to
rely solely upon an already modified Transfer Policy, 2021. On
the contrary, the respondent No. 4 was required to explain how
the subsequent Transfer Policy and Guidelines of NVS,
modifying the earlier Transfer Policies were not applicable to
respondent No. 4 and more particularly, the reason furnished
by Commissioner, NVS while passing the speaking order dated
16.08.2021, relying upon the subsequently modified Transfer
ly
Policy, 2021. The Hon’ble Tribunal has illegally chosen to total
ignore this legal submission despite being vehemently raised by
the petitioner and official respondents, while considering the
said O.A.
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 6
(h) Further, it is a
sserted that the Hon’ble Tribunal has erred
in law and facts in totally failing to consider and correctly
appreciate that the Transfer Policy, 2021 which the Hon’ble
Tribunal relies in the impugned order has not been challenged
before any High Court or any competent authority of law.
It is submitted that the applicability of the said Transfer
Policy, 2021 and more particularly, the concept and Policy
-region
named NVS inter alia “Purpose of avoiding inter
H/VH/SH
H/VH/SH cumulation” as mentioned in 4(1)(ii) if one
person is not eligible at his present station, his eligibility shall
be counted on the basis of one immediate previous station (if it
is an H/VH/SH station of the present region), ought to have
s done
been selectively overlooked by the Hon’ble Tribubnal a
by the Hon’ble Tribunal to pass the impugned illegal and
perverse order.
(i)
It is also further asserted that the Hon’ble Tribunal has
erred in law and facts in failing to correctly appreciate that it is
Tribunal to rely
totally impermissible in law for the Hon’ble
upon Para No. 4(1)(i) of the Transfer Policy, 2021 in favour of
the respondent No. 4, while seeking to totally ignore the same
Para No. 4 (1) but Para No. 4(1)(ii), which is totally in favour of
the petitioner, a transfer policy framed by NVS specifically to
avoid inter region H/VH/SH cumulation.
This plea before the Hon’ble Tribunal by the petitioner is
not at all disputable, as the existence and the provision of the
said Transfer Policy, 2021 has not been mentioned by the
respondent No. 4 in a malafide manner in the said O.A. No. 207
of 2021 nor pleaded nor said provision challenged in the said
O.A.
(j)
The Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in law and facts in totally
overlooking the counter affidavit filed by the official
respondents No. 2 & 3 (NVS) in opposition to O.A. No. 207 of
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 7
2021 that the concept and policy of counting eligibility in
H/VH/SH station on the basis of one immediate previous station
has been framed and adopted by NVS to ensure that a person
does not continue remain posted from one H/VH/SH station of
a region to another H/VH/SH of another region within a short
period.
(k)
The Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in law and facts in totally
overlooking and failing to give any finding that the automated
system which had counted the previous stay of petitioner at
JNV, Thoubal (Manipur/Hard and Difficult Station) where
petitioner had stayed from 16.07.2007 to 03.09.2018 before
her present stay at JNV, Ukhrul w.e.f. 04.09.2018 to cut off
date 31.07.2021 had legally followed the applicable transfer
policy as mentioned in Para No. 4(1)(ii).
The impugned order
of the Hon’ble Tribunal has not
given any finding regarding the legality or illegality of said
automated system as the said Para No. 4(1)(ii) nor automated
system has been mentioned in the pleading of the O.A. nor
challenged before the Hon’ble Tribunal. Hence, the Hon’ble
Tribunal has erred in facts and in law in totally ignoring this
aspect while illegally determining eligibility solely based upon
Transfer Policy, 2021 by ignoring all the other relevant transfer
policies and guidelines of NVS and more particularly said Para
No. 4 (1)(ii) of the same Transfer Policy, 2021.
(l)
The Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in law and facts in totally
overlooking and ignoring the issue of H/VH/SH station and
eligibility / provision for transfer of employees into and out of
hard & difficult (hard/very hard/semi hard) stations as
mentioned in the Transfer Policy, 2021. It is totally erroneous
le Tribunal to embark upon determining eligibility for
for Hon’b
transfer of employee of NVS by ignoring all the relevant
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 8
provision of the said Transfer Policy, 2021 duly framed by the
competent authority, i.e. NVS for its employees.
(m)
The Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in law and facts in failing
to correctly consider ad appreciate that once Transfer Policy,
2012 has already been modified and superseded by subsequent
transfer policies, the issue of seniority or date of joining service
does not arise, as transfer is not promotion where seniority
issue is involved. Transfer is governed in the present case by
relevant transfer policies and hence, the Hon’ble Tribunal by
relying upon seniority and ignoring the relevant Para No.
4(1)(ii) of the said Transfer Policy, 2021 has committed gross
error and perversity of law in passing the impugned order,
under challenge.
(n)
The Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in law and facts in
illegality setting aside the speaking order dated 16.08.2021 by
competent authority of law, without assigning a singular reason
about how the said automated system can be said to be
arbitrary, illegal or erroneous as the automated system simply
followed the relevant provision of Para No. 4(1)(ii) of the
Transfer Policy, 2021 and hence CAT order also suffers from
perversity in law, on this score also.
(o) ibunal has erred in law and facts in totally
The Hon’ble Tr
overlooking the admitted that on the basis of the said
automated system relying upon the applicability of Para No.
4(1)(ii) of Transfer Policy, 2021 may persons have already
availed the benefit. Hence, it would result in treating equal as
unequal and discriminating against the petitioner, in the event
a similarly situated employee and discriminating against the
petitioner is not made to avail the same benefit, based on
result of said automated system in all fairness and equity, as
the petitioner was already entitled to join JNV, Bishnupur the
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 9
day, when the petitioner obtained this High Court’s stay order
dated 12.08.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 496 of 2021.
(p) The subsequent order bearing F.No. 07-
23/2021/NVS/ESTT-II(ATD 20-21)/7083, dated 10.05.2023
issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Pers.), Navodalaya
Vidyalaya Samiti, Ministry of Education, Government of India is
also illegal and liable to be set aside being issued in
consequence of an illegal and perverse order dated 27.04.2023
passed in Original Application No. 042/00207/2021 by the
Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench.
[5] The case of the respondents are as under :
The Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti is an autonomous organization
of Ministry of Education Department of School Education and Literacy,
Government of India, having its present headquarters at Noida (UP) and
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Navodaya Vidyalaya
Samiti runs, manages and controls the functioning of Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalayas (in short JNVs) all over India, through its eight Regional Offices.
JNVs are fully residential co-educational schools set with the
objective of providing modern quality education to talented children,
predominantly from rural areas. Students, teachers and staff live in the same
campus. Most of the JNVs are set up in rural areas, far away from district
headquarters. Teachers and staff are expected to exhibit exemplary moral
character before the students. Strict disciplinary measures are being followed
to ensure high moral standard among teachers and staff.
Before the lower Court, the applicant has impleaded Union of
India, represented by Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of HRD (now
Ministry of Education), Department of Education, New Delhi as party
respondent No. 1 who is the proforma party. None of the orders/action of
the OP No. 1 has been challenged herein and the specific prayer made by
the applicant is related to the affairs of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti at its
Headquarters, Sector 62 Noida. Hence, the OP No. 1 has no role to play in
–
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 10
the instant matter and no specific reply in the subject matter of dispute is
needed from the OP No. 1 in the facts and circumstances of the case. It
would be pertinent to mention here that NVS at initial stage of OA has taken
nal did not take up the request of NVS
the objection, however, Hon’ble Tribu
for deletion the name of UOI/R-
1. Hence, before the Hon’ble High Court at
initial stage the applicant is requesting the same. This Court may be pleased
to accede the same in the interest of justice and fair play as the R-1 has no
role in the matter and no order passed by R-1 is challenged by the applicant.
Annual Transfer Drive 2021 was effected in accordance with
the provisions of transfer policy 2012 as well as transfer guidelines issued
22.12.2015. It was well informed to all concerned
vide Samiti’s letter dated
in the said letter dated 22.12.2015 that the request transfer will be effected
in certain order or priorities by adhering to the provisions of transfer policy
and instructions of Government of India. The deponent at this stage humbly
begs to extract the relevant clauses of the transfer guidelines issued vide
letter dated 22.12.2015:
“………….. In order to maximize the request transfer in the year 2016
onwards the transfer will be effected in the following order of
priorities:
(a)Transfer of differently abled employees to their choice place.
(b)Transfer of employees who are suffering from serious
ailments/disease including their spouse and children as mentioned in
Transfer Policy.
(c)Transfer of employees completing mandatory tenure at very hard,
hard and NER region.
(d)Transfer of husband/wife to one station from unification with spouse
or nearby station.”
It was, further, made clear that in the said letter dated
22.12.2015 that the transfer of (i) employees suffering from serious
ailment/disease including their spouse and children as mentioned in Transfer
Policy (iii) transfer of husband/wife to one station for unification with spouse
or nearby station will not be covered under transfer counts keeping in view
the Government of India orders in their favour.
It is imperative to mention herein that transfer of employees of
JNVs is made through Automated Transfer Portal. Further, the deponent
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 11
humbly begs to state that such Automated Transfer Portal operates in
accordance with the provisions of the Transfer Policy dated 04.04.2012 as
well as the guidelines issued from time to time. In the interest of mass of the
employees, who had served more than mandatory period at Hard/Very Hard
station in a row in current spell, however could not get the transfer either
out from hard station or desired station within hard stations as per provisions
of Transfer Policy, it was approved by the competent authority to lay down
interpretation vis-(cid:224)-vis clause of policy determining the tenure of employee
for acquiring eligibility for seeking transfer in the ATD 2020-21.
1. Hard Station employee (Cumulative Eligibility/Station
Seniority):
As the employee working on the hard station has got
provision for taking advantage of cumulated period of hard
stations served in a row in current spell the provision of
deciding eligibility of the Hard stationed employee shall be
applicable exactly similar to the principle adopted in “Admin
Aribam
Cumulative Provision”. Accordingly, the tenure of Ms.
Sobita Devi was counted her stay at present station and
preceding station at JNV, Thoubal (Manipur) [Hard & Difficult
Station] adhering to the provision II mentioned hereunder:
I. If a H/VH/SH person is eligible at its present
Hard/Very Hard/Semi Hard Station, his eligibility shall
be counted on the basis of present station itself. In
such case no cumulation of previous station will be
required for deciding eligibility/station seniority.
II. If a H/VH/SH person is not eligible at his present
station, his eligibility shall be counted on the basis of
one immediate previous station (if it is an H/VH/SH
station of the present region).
III. If a H/VH/SH person is neither eligible at his present
station nor at his immediate previous H/VH/SH
station of counted by cumulating the period of
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 12
present and previous station (if it is a H/VH/SH
station of the same region) with lower priority. In
such case only one previous station shall be
considered for calculation of the cumulative period.
IV. This provision shall stand applicable for transfer of
employees from hard station to outside as well as
transfer within hard stations.
V. The cutoff date set for the purpose of counting of
stay at hard station was 31.07.2021. Smt. Khoibam
Jerina was posted at JNV, Chandel, Manipur on
31.07.2021 she had duly completed the period of 3
years. As such, the automated portal worked out the
total number of days of stay of Smt. Khoibam Jerina
at JNV, Chandel counting her stay from 13.07.2017
to 31.07.2021 at JNV, Chandel which came to 1480
days. On the other hand, the petitioner was posted
at JNV, Ukhrul, Manipur on 04.09.2018 and hence,
as on cut off date 31.07.2021, she had not
completed the mandatory period of 3 years at JNV,
Ukhrul. Accordingly, her tenure was counted as per
the clause (ii) of guidelines which stipulates that if an
H/VH/SH person is not eligible at his present station,
his eligibility shall be counted on the basis of one
immediate previous station (if it is an H/VH/SH
station of the present region at par with the
provision mentioned in the Admin Cumulative
Transfer Provision vide which Commission, NVS had
taken the interpretation to safeguard the interest of
employees to extend the benefit of cumulative
tenure at preceding station in exercise the power
conferred under
Clause of 10 of Transfer Policy, 2021 and the
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 13
automated system count her cumulative stay
counting her stay at the present station i.e. JNV,
Ukhrul and previous station at JNV, Thoubal,
Manipur (Hard & Difficult Station) where the
petitioner stayed from 16.07.2007 to 03.09.2008 and
therefore, the automated portal worked out total
number of days of stay of the petitioner in hard and
difficult station which came out to 4068 days as per
the laid down provision of Admin Cumulative
Provision as well as guidelines on the subject issue.
The respondents at this stage state that Smt. Khoibam Jerina
filed the O.A. No. 042/00207/2021 challenging the proposed transfer list
(round 2) ATD 2020-21 on the ground that the respondent No. 4 (Ms. Sobita
Devi) is junior to the applicant, Smt. Khoibam Jerina Devi. Further, prayer
was made seeking for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider
the case of the applicant (Ms. Kh. Jerina Devi) to transfer to JNV, Bishnupur
as per Clause 9(1)(c) of the Transfer Guidelines, 2012 before considering the
case of the respondent No. 4 claiming that she is senior in the station
seniority than Ms. Aribam Sobita Devi. In fact the transfer of Ms. Aribam
Sobita Devi was considered by NVS under Admin Cumulative Provisions &
Guidelines through the process of automation during the transfer drive of
2020 21 strictly as per the provision of Transfer Policy. In the submission
–
of the answering respondents, the prayer made by Ms. Kh. Jerina claiming
the transfer to JNV, Bishnupur being the station senior by filing the O.A. No.
042/00207/2021 was nothing but false and misleading in view of the fact
that the representation submitted by the applicant Ms. Kh. Jerina was
considered in the light of the transfer guidelines and regulations regarding
count of cumulative eligibility/station seniority of employee served at
Hard/Very Hard Station and disposed of vide speaking & reasoned order
dated 16.08.2021 pursuant to the order of Hon’ble CAT dated 16.07.2021
passed in earlier O.A. No. 163/2021 filed by Ms. Kh. Jerina before the
Hon’ble CAT Guwahati Bench, Guwahati. As such, while disposing of the
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 14
representation submitted by the applicant, the answering respondents found
that the applicant is not eligible to be transferred to JNV, Bishnupur rejecting
the claim of the applicant being devoid of any merit in the light of the
provisions of the transfer policy.
In the light of the records of the case as well as in terms of the
order dated 16.07.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A. no.
163/2021, the respondent further states that considering all the relevant
factors, the computer system found the petitioner senior than Smt. Kh.
Jerina respondent No. 4 after counting the stay of petitioner in the
immediate previous station and consequently, allotted JNV, Bishnupur to her.
As to the statements made in the writ petition, the respondent
has no comments to offer. However the deponent does not admit anything
which is contrary to and inconsistent with the records of the instant case.
With regard to the statements made, the respondent states
that the office order bearing No. F.No. 07-23/2021/NVS/Estt-II(ATD-20-
21)/7083 dated 10.05.2023 transferring Smt. Kh. Jerina, TGT (Hindi),
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Chandel (Manipur) to JNV, Bishnupur
(Manipur) was issued in compliance with the order dated 27.04.2023 passed
by the Hon’ble CAT Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in O.A. No. 207/2021 titled
Smt. Kh. Jerina Vs. UOI &Ors. The operative part of the order dated
is reproduced as
27.04.2023 passed by the Hon’ble CAT, Guwahati Bench
under:
We are of the considered view that Commissioner, Navodaya
“6.
Vidyalaya Samiti has erred in arriving at the above conclusion by
ruling in favour of respondent No. 4, Smt. Aribam Sobita Devi and
caused discrimination and prejudice to the applicant, Smt. Kh. Jerina,
by rejecting her claim. As per the Transfer Policy, 2021, the applicant
Smt. Kh. Jerina has already done three years in her current posting
and thus falls in the category of ‘eligible’ as per 4(1)(i) above.
Respondent No. 4 Smt. Aribam Sobita Devi has not done three years
in her current posting and thus falls in the category of “not eligible”
as per 4(1)(ii).
7. This Tribunal is of the view that once the applicant (Ms.
Jerina) has been fund to be eligible, she deserves to get priority and
precedence over respondent No. 4 who prima facie is “not eligible”
and but made “eligible” cannot be compared with “not eligible” and
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 15
thus the order of Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti is bad in
law and deserves to be set aside and quashed.
8. Accordingly, we set aside and quash the impugned No. 7-
23/2021-NVS(Estt-II)/8455, dated 16.08.2021 (Annexure A/2) and
–
direct the respondent No. 2 and 3 to consider the case of the
applicant for transfer to JNV, Bishnupur (Manipur) under the
“eligible”
category of Transfer Conditions of 2021 as well as on the “seniority”
principles of Transfer Conditions of 2012 (The applicant having joined
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti as TGT-Hindi on 14.07.2006 vis-(cid:224)-vis Smt.
Aribam Sobita Devi who joined Navodaya Vidyalaya Samit on
16.07.2007).
9. With the above observation and directions the instant O.A. is
allowed with no order as to costs.”
The respondents state that in compliance of the order of
e order dated
Hon’ble CAT, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, NVS issued the offic
10.05.2023 transferring Smt. Kh. Jerina, TGT (Hindi) at JNV, Bishnupur
considering the fact that the transfer is related to long back of ATD 2020-21
and due to which no one can be posted to JNV, Bishnupur which adversely
hampered the academics of the students of JNV, Bishnupur. Accordingly, to
avoid the unnecessary further litigation in the compelling situation, Samiti
transferred Smt. Kh. Jerina to JNV, Bishnupur. Smt. Kh. Jerina, TGT (Hindi)
had already joined to the post of TGT-Hindi at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Bishnupur (Manipur) on 23.05.2023 and as of now there is no vacancy of
TGT-Hindi in JNV, Bishnupur (Manipur).
The respondents state that two posts of TGT Hindi are
–
sanctioned and two teachers are already working against the sanctioned
posts of TGT-Hindi resulting into no vacancy of TGT-Hindi in JNV, Chandel
(Manipur).
In view the aforementioned submissions and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the respondents state that the impugned office
order dated 10.05.2023 transferring Smt. Kh. Jerina, TGT-Hindi to JNV,
Bishnupur (Manipur) was issued as per the direction of Hon’ble CAT,
Guwahati Bench, Guwahati passed in its order dated 27.04.2023 passed in
O.A. No. 042/00207/2021. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to any
relief/s as prayed for in the writ petition and the instant writ petition
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 16
deserves to be dismissed. In view of the said submissions made
hereinabove, this Court may be pleased to dismiss the present petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present
respondent No. 4 filed O.A. No. 042/00163/2021 before CAT, Guwahati
challenging the proposed transfer list dated 22.06.2021 (Round 2) of ATD
2020-21 by deliberately concealing the already published final transfer list
dated 01.07.2021 by misrepresenting facts.
However, this submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is not sustainable, as on perusal of the both transfer lists, the
present respondent No. 4 was found aggrieved/affected by both the
proposed transfer list as well as the final transfer list.
Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
said O.A. No. 163 of 2021 was disposed of without issuing notice or giving
opportunity of being heard to the present petitioner. However, on perusal of
the said order of the Ld. Tribunal, it was found that the Ld. Tribunal has
given just a direction to the authority to dispose of the representation filed
by the present respondent No. 4 within 4 (four) months nothing else without
going into merit of the case.
Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
against the said Hon’ble CAT’s order, the present petitioner filed the writ
petition being W.P.(C) No. 496 of 2021 and t High Court passed
his Hon’ble
favourable order in favour of the present petitioner. We extract the operative
and the same is reproduced herein
portion of this Hon’ble Court’s order
below:
Mr. T. Momo, learned counsel, would state that the only
“[4]
grievance of the writ petitioner was that the Tribunal, without
putting her on notice, had directed that her case should not be
given effect to, while disposing of OA No. 042/00163/2021. He
would state that she no longer has any grievance in the light of the
disposal of the representation dated 06.07.2021 by the competent
authority in her favour, by the order dated 16.08.2021. He would
further state that as the validity of the said order is presently under
consideration before the Tribunal in the new OA filed by respondent
No. 4, herein, the cause in this writ petition no longer survives.
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 17
As the grievance of the writ petitioner was on limited to the
direction of the Tribunal that her case should not be considered as
she had no grievance whatsoever with the direction to dispose of
the representation dated 06.07.2021 made by respondent No. 4
herein, the validity of such disposal is not in question before this
Court. It is for the Tribunal to verify the validity of the order dated
16.08.2021 passed in exercise of such disposal in the pending O.A.
Further, as the disposal of the representation was made by the
competent authority pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal, in
ignorance of the interim suspension granted by this Court, which
was altogether on a different ground, the Commissioner, Navodaya
Vidyalaya Samity, Uttar Pradesh, is at liberty to lift the interim
suspension of his earlier order dated 16.08.2021 so that its validity
can be examined by the Tribunal.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation.
I
n the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.”
However, on perusal of the above reproduced operative portion
, we find no favourable order in favour of the
of this Hon’ble Court’s order
petitioner. But, instead, rather has given liberty to the CAT
this Hon’ble Court
to examine and dispose of the case of the parties which was filed by the
present respondent No. 4.
It was, further, submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the plea of respondent No. 4 was basing on the guidelines
issued by NVS in Clause No. 9(1)(c) of the Transfer Policy, 2012 which is bad
in law as the said Transfer Policy, 2012 has already been
superseded/modified and eclipsed by the Transfer Policy, 2021.
Further, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.
2 & 3 submitted that as the respondent No. 1 has no role to play in the
instant matter, no specific reply in the subject matter is needed in the facts
and circumstances of the case and as such, requested this Court to delete
the name of the respondent No. 1. Accordingly, the prayer for deleting the
name of respondent No. 1 is allowed. The Registry is directed to delete the
name of respondent No. 1 in the cause title.
At the outset, we extract relevant portion of both guidelines.
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 18
r Request Transfer basing on Transfer count
“9.1 Method fo
(c) In case of a tie in two or more employees of the same gender an
employee with an earlier date of joining in present post in present
station shall be accommodated and in case, if the date of joining in
present post in present station also coincides then the older
employee shall be first accommodated”.
Relevant portion of 2021 Transfer Guidelines as follows:
4.6 (i) Benefit of Cumulative tenure for eligibility to employees
“
working in hard and difficult station: If an employee has successfully
worked in different Jawarhar Navodaya Vidyalaya in Very
Hard/Hard/Semi Hard Stations of a region in a row in the current
spell, the tenure of immediate previous station shall be used as a
cumulative factor to determine his/her eligibility (for transfer) from
present station. The governing provisions of cumulative tenure shall
further be as under:
i. If an employee serving at present hard station, is eligible by
virtue of his tenure at present station, the provisions of
cumulative tenure count shall not be extended to him.
ii. If an employee serving at present hard and difficult station, is
not eligible by virtue of his tenure at present hard station, his
tenure of service at immediate previous hard station (of the
same region) shall be the deciding factor of his eligibility. If
he is eligible to seek request transfer due to stay at his
immediate previous station, he shall be considered eligible to
seek transfer due to stay at his immediate previous station
only subject to lower hard station’s category (between
present and immediate previous station).
iii. If an employee serving at hard and difficult station, is neither
eligible by virtue of his tenure at present hard station nor his
tenure at previous hard station (of the same region), his
tenure of eligibility shall be decided by cumulating the tenure
of present hard station and immediate previous hard station
of the same region, restricting the eligibility to lower hard
station’s category (between present and immediate previous
station).
iv. It is to clarify that such provision of cumulative tenure of hard
station shall be region specific and shall not be applicable for
two different hard stations of different regions.
v. By mentioning hard station, it implies for very hard, hard and
semi hard stations interchangeably among such stations”.
[6] On perusal of both guidelines, we found both the
guidelines are in favour of the present respondent No. 4, because the fact
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 19
remains that the present respondent No. 4 joined service on 14.07.2006, the
petitioner joined service on 16.07.2007 and the petitioner joined her present
posting i.e. JNV, Ukhrul on 04.09.2018 and the respondent No. 4 joined her
present place of posting (before her transfer to JNV, Bishnupur) on
13.07.2017. Accordingly, the present respondent is eligible for transfer to
JNV, Bishnupur straight away by applying the relevant guidelines i.e.
Transfer Guidelines, 2012 and also that the respondent No. 4 will also be the
eligible candidate for transfer by applying clause (i) of the Transfer
Guidelines, 2021. In short, the respondent No. 4 is senior to the present
petitioner and the respondent No. 4 has already completed 3 years at her
present place of posting i.e. JNV, Chandel as required under both guidelines.
On the other hand, the present petitioner was junior to the
respondent No. 4 and was not yet completed 3 year at her place of posting
i.e. JNV, Ukhrul and thus, respondent No. 4
falls in the category of “Eligible”
as per part (i) of 4.6(i) above. As such, the respondent No. 4 is eligible for
consideration of transfer to JNV, Bishnupur over the present petitioner under
the above 2 (two) transfer guidelines. Accordingly, the authority should give
priority to the respondent No. 4 over the petitioner.
It is also fact that both the present respondent No. 4 as well as
the petitioner filed their respective request letters for transferring them to
the JNV, Bishnupur, as per the guidelines of the transfer policy of Navodaya
Vidyalaya Samiti (Transfer Guidelines of employees of NVS). Guideline No. 2
of the Transfer Policy of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti for transfer of
employees of NVS is reproduced herein below:
2. GUIDING/BASIC PRINCIPLES
“
(a) An employee on initial posting after
recruitment/promotion will not be considered for request
transfer before he completes the prescribed mandatory
tenure/normal tenure at his initial place of posting.
(b) Transfer/posting to a choice place/desired station shall
not be claimed as a matter of right. Some crucial
determinants for such transfer are as under:
i) Availability of a clear-cut vacancy.
ii) Domain expertise of an employee.
iii) Performance of an employee against tangible
parameters wherever possible for example, CBSE
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 20
results, APAR Grading in the last five years or such
other parameters as may be prescribed from time to
time for different posts.
iv) Factors such as; due for retirement, medical
problems faced by an employee or family members,
spouse working at a station etc.
v) Redeployment of surplus staff in excess of
sanctioned strength at a location to other location
against sanctioned vacancies.”
The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in
compliance of the had already
Ld. CAT Guwahati Bench’s order, the NVS
issued office order dated 10.05.2023 transferring the respondent No. 4 at
JNV, Bishnupur considering the fact that the transfer was related to long
back ATD 2020-21 and due to which, no one can be posted to JNV,
Bishnupur which adversely hampered the academy of JNV, Bishnupur.
Accordingly, to avoid the compelling, the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti
transferred the respondent No. 4 to JNV, Bishnupur and accordingly,
respondent No. 4 had already joined JNV, Bishnupur on 23.05.2023, and as
of now, there is no vacancy in JNV, Bishnupur.
On careful conspectus of the final transfer list, we are
convinced and satisfied that the authority prepared the said proposed list as
well as the final list by applying clause (ii) of 4.6 (i) of the Transfer
Guidelines, 2021. However, the authority should apply this only when there
is only 1(one) candidate asking for transfer and posting. However, in the
instant case, 2(two) candidates from the same region were applying for
transfer in the same place of posting i.e. JNV, Bishnupur.
As such, we are of the considered view that the authority erred
in issuing the said proposed list as well as the final list and issuance of the
rejection order No. F.No. 7-23/2021-NVS issued by the Commissioner,
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. The authority should consider the case of the
present respondent No. 4 at the first instance, as she is eligible for transfer
to JNV, Bishnupur by applying column No. (i) of 4.6(i) of the Transfer
Guidelines, 2021 at the first instance. However, the authority issued the said
order in favour of the petitioner by applying (ii) of 4.6(i). The authority
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 21
should give priority to the respondent No. 4, as the present respondent No. 4
deserves to get priority and precedence over the present petitioner.
[7] In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the authority
violates the mandatory statutory rules and acted malafide.
[8] On perusal of the Ld. order, we find that the Ld. CAT,
CAT’s
Guwahati Bench considered the pleas put forth by the parties in totality while
passing the order.
[9] In our view, the Deputy Commissioner (Pers.), Navodaya
Vidyalaya Samiti, Ministry of Education, Government of India rightly issued
the order bearing F. No. 07-23/2021/NVS/ESTT-II(ATD 20-21)/7083, dated
10.05.2023.
[10] The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his case in
the matter of limitation of power of the Court to interfere with the transfer
and posting of the employees of the State, relied upon the following the
.
Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgments
1. Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) &Ors. v. State of Bihar -1991
“
Supp. (2) SCC 659”
But, here -
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
“3. If the competent authority issued transfer orders with a
view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship, the
same cannot and should not be interfered by the court merely
because the transfer orders were passed on the request of
the employees concerned. The respondents have continued to
be posted at their respective places for the last several years,
they have no vested right to remain posted at one place.
Since they hold transferable posts they are liable to be
transferred from one place to the other. The transfer orders
had been issued by the competent authority which did not
violate any mandatory rule, therefore the High Court had no
jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer orders.
4. The courts should not interfere with a transfer order which
is made in public interest and for administrative reasons
unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any
mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A
government servant holding a transferable post has no vested
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 22
right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable
to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders
issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his
legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of
executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should
not interfere with the order; instead affected party should
approach the higher authorities in the department. If the
courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders
issued by the government and its subordinate authorities,
there will be complete chaos in the administration which
would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court
overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer
orders.”
2. State of Uttar
“Rajendra Singh and Ors v.
Pradesh and Ors.- (2009) 15 SCC 178
”
But, here -
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
“8. A government servant has no vested right to remain
posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must
be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be
transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to
the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident
inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an
essential condition of service in the absence of any specific
indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the
government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a
particular place or position, he should continue in such place
or position as long as he desires (see State of U.P. v.
Gobardhan Lal’, SCC p. 406, para 7).
9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the
transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by
violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala
fides. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar this Court held: (SCC p.
661, para 4)
‘4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with
a transfer order which is made in public interest and for
administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are
made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on
the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a
transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at
one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from
one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the
competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights.
Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive
instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not
interfere with the order and instead affected party should
approach the higher authorities in the department. If the
courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer
orders issued by the government and its subordinate
authorities, there will be complete chaos in the
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 23
administration which would not be conducive to public
interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in
interfering with the transfer orders.
’
10. In N.K. Singh v. Union of India’ this Court reiterated that:
(SCC p. 103. para 6) a 6. ... the scope of judicial review in
matters of transfer of a government servant to an equivalent
post without any adverse consequence on the service or
career prospects is very limited being confined only to the
grounds of mala fides and violation of any specific
provision...."
3. - (1993) 4 SCC 357
“Union of India v. S.L. Abbas ”
But, here -
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
“6. An order of transfer is an incident of Government
Service. Fundamental Rule 11 says that "the whole time of a
Government servant is at the disposal of the Government
which pays him and he may be employed in any manner
required by proper authority. Fundamental Rule 15 says that
"the President may transfer a government servant from one
post to another". That the respondent is liable to transfer
anywhere in India is not in dispute. It is not the case of the
respondent that order of his transfer is vitiated by mala fides
on the part of the authority making the order,- though the
Tribunal does say so merely because certain guidelines issued
by the Central Government are not followed, with which
finding we shall deal later. The respondent attributed
"mischief" to his immediate superior who had nothing to do
with his transfer. All he says is that he should not be
transferred because his wife is working at Shillong, his
children are studying there and also because his health had
suffered a set-back some time ago. He relies upon certain
executive instructions issued by the Government in that
behalf. Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines.
They do not have statutory force.
7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the
appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is
vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of any statutory
provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering
the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in
mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject.
Similarly, if a person makes any representation with respect
to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the
same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The
guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must
be posted at the same place. The said guideline however
does not confer upon the government employee a legally
enforceable right.
8. The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal is
akin to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 24
the constitution of India in service matters. This is evident
from a perusal of Article 323-A of the constitution. The
constraints and norms which the High Court observes while
exercising the said jurisdiction apply equally to the Tribunal
created under Article 323-A. (We find it all the more
surprising that the learned Single Member who passed the
impugned order is a former Judge of the High Court and is
thus aware of the norms and constraints of the writ
jurisdiction.) The Administrative Tribunal is not an Appellate
Authority sitting in judgment over the orders of transfer. It
cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the authority
competent to transfer. In this case the Tribunal has clearly
exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of
transfer. The order of the Tribunal reads as if it were sitting in
appeal over the order of transfer made by the Senior
Administrative Officer (competent authority).”
4. Shayara (the Triple Talaq Case)
“ Bano v. UOI”
But, here the Supreme Court ruled that
–
The practice of instantaneous triple talaq (Talaq-ul-
biddat) was unlawful. The Bench noted that the equality of
status was a manifestation of the fundamental right to
equality protected by Article 14 of the Constitution.
The equality of status of present Petitioner qua the
other employees of Official Respondents who have obtained
the benefit of Automated Transfer Portal and which is
unchallenged nor interfered by any Court of Law and even in
the impugned order of CAT, is to be protected in favour of the
Petitioner.
5. U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. vs. Ayodhya Prasad
“
Mishra - (2008) 10 SCC 139
”
But, here -
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
t is well settled that Article 14 is designed to prevent
“36. I
discrimination. It seeks to prohibit a person or class of
persons from being singled out from others similarly situated
or circumstanced for the purpose of being specially subjected
to discrimination by hostile legislation. It, however, does
not prohibit classification, if such classification is based on
legal and relevant considerations.
37. Every classification, to be legal, valid and permissible,
must fulfil the twin- test, namely,
(i) the classification must be founded on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons
or things that are grouped together from others
left out of the group; and
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 25
(ii) such differentia must have a rational relation
to the object sought to be achieved by the statute
or legislation in question.
38. In the present case, the sole criterion for promotion of
an Executive Engineer to the post of Superintending
merit’. The Regulations, therefore, contemplate
Engineer is ‘
preparation of different select lists and allotment of mark
s”.
[11] On a careful conspectus of the legal spectrum, we are of the
considered view that the aforementioned decisions
of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court do not help the case of the petitioner, rather it goes against the
petitioner. We are convinced here
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down
the principle of law that the transfer and posting of a public servant should
not be interfered with by the Court, which is made in public interest and for
administrative reasons. We also mindful of the principle of law that the
principle of transfer and posting of the public servant should not be affected
by violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of the
malafide.
However, in the present case as discussed above, the authority
of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti committed violation of mandatory statutory
rule as set out in the Transfer Policy and committed malafide.
[12] The operative portion of the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by
the Ld. CAT, Guwahati Bench, impugned herein, reads as follows:
We are of the considered view that Commissioner, Navodaya
“6.
Vidyalaya Samiti has erred in arriving at the above conclusion by
ruling in favour of respondent No. 4, Smt. Aribam Sobita Devi and
caused discrimination and prejudice to the applicant, Smt. Kh. Jerina,
by rejecting her claim. As per the Transfer Policy, 2021, the applicant
Smt. Kh. Jerina has already done three years in her current posting
and thus falls in the category of ‘eligible’ as per 4(1)(i) above.
Respondent No. 4 Smt. Aribam Sobita Devi has not done three years
in her current posting and thus falls in the category of “not eligible”
as per 4(1)(ii).
7. This Tribunal is of the view that once the applicant (Ms.
Jerina) has been fund to be eligible, she deserves to get priority and
precedence over
respondent No. 4 who prima facie is “not eligible”
and but made “eligible” cannot be compared with “not eligible” and
thus the order of Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti is bad in
law and deserves to be set aside and quashed.
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 26
8. Accordingly, we set aside and quash the impugned No. 7-
23/2021-NVS(Estt-II)/8455, dated 16.08.2021 (Annexure A/2) and
–
direct the respondent No. 2 and 3 to consider the case of the
applicant for transfer to JNV, Bishnupur (Manipur) under the “eligible”
category of Transfer Co
nditions of 2021 as well as on the “seniority”
principles of Transfer Conditions of 2012 (The applicant having joined
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti as TGT-Hindi on 14.07.2006 vis-(cid:224)-vis Smt.
Aribam Sobita Devi who joined Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on
16.07.2007).
9. With the above observation and directions the instant O.A. is
allowed with no order as to costs.”
[13] Letter of the Deputy Commissioner dated 10.05.2023
addressed to Smt. Khoibam Jerina whereby transferring her to the JNV,
Bishnupur is reproduced herein below:
“Ref.: No. PERS. OA (Jerina)/NVS(SHR)/E.III/1177 Date : 10.05.2023
To
Smt. Khoibam Jerina,
TGT (Hindi),
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Chandel (Manipur)
Subject: Transfer to JNV, Bishnupur (Manipur) under
H/VH/SH category against ATD 2020-21
–
Regarding.
Madam,
I am to refer to NVS, Hqr, Office Order No. 07-
23/2021/NVS/Estt-II (ATD 20-21)/7083 dated 10.05.2023 by which
–
incompliance with the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the Hon’ble
CAT Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in OA No. 207/2021 titled Smt.
Khoibam Jerina Vs. UOI &Ors. you have been transferred to Jawahar
Novodaya Vidyalaya, Bishnupur (Manipur) under H/VH/SH Category
against the ATD 2020-21.
Smt. Khoibam Jerina, TGT (Hindi) will not be entitled for
transfer benefits.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(K.V. SURESH)
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Enclo. : Office Order No. 7083
Dated 10.05.2023.
”
[14] After having considered the facts and circumstance of the case
and in the background of the discussions made herein above and on taking
an overall view, we find no ground to set aside and quash the impugned final
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 27
order dated 27.04.2023 passed in O.A. No. 042/00207/2021 by the Hon’ble
CAT, Guwahati Bench and the office order bearing Ref.: No. 07-
23/2021/NVS/ESTT-II(ATD-2020-21)/7083, dated 10.05.2023 issued by the
Deputy Commissioner (Pers.), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Ministry of
Education, Government of India.
[15] With the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed
without costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Bipin
W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2023 Page 28