IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 6682 of 2009(S) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.I.SHEELA, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.ADV.JOHN K.GEORGE, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGHATHAN REGIONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI. PERMANENT ADDRESS: SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM KOCHI-682 025, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, NO.18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI-110 016. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMN.) KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, NO.18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI-110 016. 3. THE EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, NO.18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI-110 016. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, REGIONAL OFFICE, IIT CAMPUS, CHENNAI-36. 5. SMT.JAYA SASI, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. M/S.IYER & IYER, SC.KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.V.V.ASOKAN, SC. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).6682/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, IN O.A.NO.553/08 DATED 27TH JANUARY, 2009. EXT.P2: COPY OF O.A.NO.553/08 DATED 14TH SEPTEMBER 2008 WITH ITS ANNEXURES FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 14.10.2008 FILED BY THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS IN O.A.NO.553/08. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 1.11.2008 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN O.A.NO.553/08. EXT.P5: COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 17.11.2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.A.NO.553/08. EXT.P6: COPY OF REPLY TO REJOINDER DATED 15.12.2008 FILED BY THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS IN O.A.NO.553/08. EXT.P7: COPY OF O.A.NO.165/08 DATED 26.3.2008 (LESS ITS ANNEXURES) FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 19.5.2008 FILED BY THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENT IN O.A.NO.165/08. EXT.P9: COPY OF W.P.(C).NO.20207/08 DATED 3RD JULY 2008 (LESS ITS ENCLOSURES) FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.20207/08 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P11: COPY OF MONTHLY REPORT CARD OF THE PETITIONER'S SON AMITH JOHN. EXT.P12: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 23.9.2009 ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 5.10.2009 ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 1.12.2009, ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. WP(C).6682/2009 EXT.P15: COPY OF DOPT OFFICE MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.13018/2/2008-ESTT.(L) DATED 11.09.2008. EXT.P16: COPY OF ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN I.A.NO.15717/09 IN W.P.(C). NO.6682/09 (S) DATED 23.12.2009. EXT.P17: COPY OF LETTER DATED 24TH DECEMBER 2009, ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT, BY THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL. EXT.P18: COPY OF TELEGRAM DATED 15.1.2010 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P19: COPY OF COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.F.17098/TIS-SST/08-KVS(CHER)/57785 DATED 3.2.2010, ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P20: COPY OF MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.F.17067/168/WP.6682/09-KVS(CHER)/ 53142/53143 DATED 6.1.2010, ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P21: COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO.17029/66/2009-KVS-HQ(E.III) DATED 1.1.2009 (2010) REFERRED TO IN EXT.P20, ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN TO THE ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, CHENNAI. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.6682 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. The writ petitioner, now an Assistant Superintendent in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, was transferred from Ernakulam to Chennai by order dated 6.8.2008. She challenged it before the Central Administrative Tribunal, essentially projecting that it is a transfer, on her being identified as surplus. That plea was turned down in O.A.No.165/8. The Tribunal, without any rival in the category on the array of parties before it, however, directed that “if any vacancy arises in the nearby area, the petitioner's case may be considered in preference to others, except priority category i.e. MDG, DSP and LTR category” The applicant came to this court against that. This court granted an interim order directing that a representation made by her for transfer as against a vacancy that was available on 1.4.2008 be considered. Pending W.P.(C)No.20207/08, that W.P.(C)No.6682 of 2009 :: 2 :: request was considered and rejected by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. Therefore, this court closed that writ petition on 2.9.2008, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to challenge the latter decision of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. She filed O.A.No.553/08 before the Tribunal challenging that decision. That application was dismissed. This writ petition is filed challenging that order. 2. Before the Tribunal and before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that his client is entitled to the benefit of the direction contained in the order of the Tribunal in its order dated 19.6.2008 in O.A.No.165/08. The direction, as already noted above, is to treat her case in preference to others, except the three priority categories viz., MDG, DSP and LTR. In our view, the learned Vice Chairman of the W.P.(C)No.6682 of 2009 :: 3 :: Tribunal was right in rejecting that contention because, no such direction could have been issued against the interest of other categories, whose cases may also have to be considered at the appropriate time in terms of the general guidelines for transfer and also in finding out any surplusage. The freedom of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to handle the cases of its employees under a common yardstick of guidelines could not have been interfered with by the Tribunal. That apart, at any rate, no such direction should be treated as running contrary to a preferential treatment for any employee for transfer on priority basis under the guidelines for transfer. This principle has been succinctly noted in the impugned order, while it was said that though courts could pass equitable orders and the executive authority is bound to follow those W.P.(C)No.6682 of 2009 :: 4 :: equitable orders and is not entitled to have a course of their own, ignoring the decision of the judicial authority, such strictness cannot be attached in all circumstances, especially when third parties' rights are involved. 3. The Tribunal also repelled the plea of the applicant that the vacancy of 1.4.2008 requires to be earmarked for the applicant. At any rate, even assuming that the said contention had any merit, it has been worsted by the consideration and rejection of the representation by the competent authority. 4. In the aforesaid circumstance, we do not find any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the decision of the Tribunal warranting interference at our hands in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C)No.6682 of 2009 :: 5 :: 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that a vacancy is likely to arise on 1.7.2010. He also says that there are certain other extenuating circumstances, which may give the petitioner a preference. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's initial displacement in 2008 was only to accommodate Smt.Rajalekshmy on DPS grounds and therefore, the petitioner has a preferential claim. That is also an issue, which could be considered only by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. That too, only if it is not concluded by the decision already rendered by it, rejecting the representation. At any rate, it is not a matter that could override the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which we affirm. In our view, any further request for transfer is exclusively within the executive realm and the W.P.(C)No.6682 of 2009 :: 6 :: petitioner could make any claim in that regard only before the executive higher ups of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. We leave open that question. The pendency of this writ petition would also be taken into consideration by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, if the petitioner seeks indulgence, in the event of there being any delay in seeking transfer during the current or next year. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//