CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5988 OF 2007 ( In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) ****** Mrs. Kiran Kumari aged about 45 years, W/o Shri Ram Nath Chaudhary resident of Mohalla Ranipur Khirki ( Upari Gali) Patna City, Dist.- Patna presently working as TGT (Social Science) Kendirya Vidyalaya Samastipur, Dist.-Samastipur. ------Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of HRD (Department of Education) Govt. of India, New Delhi, through Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110016. 2. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Margh, New Delhi- 110016. 3. Joint Commissioner (Adm.) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi- 110016. 4. Dy. Commissioner (Adm.) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18 Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi- 110016. 5. Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Kankarbagh, P.O. Lohia Nagar, Patna- 800020. -------Respondents ****** For the Petitioner : Dr.S.P.Singh,Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. G.K.Agrawal, Advocate. & Mr. Kumar Ravish, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ****** S.K. Katriar & K.K.Mandal,J.J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 05.04.2007, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 89 of 2007( Mrs. Kiran Kumari vs. The Union of India & Ors.), whereby the original application preferred by the present petitioner has been rejected, and the transfer order has been upheld. 2 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner is a trained Graduate teacher in Social Science in Kendriya Vidyalaya, and was earlier posted at Kolkata. She was transferred to Bihta Kendriya Vidyalaya which she had joined on 13.09.2004. She was visited with the impugned order dated 11.08.2006, whereby she has been transferred from Bihta to Samastipur. 3. While assailing the validity of the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she had been transferred from Kolkata to Bihta to be near her family, namely, the husband and two daughters at Patna. Bihta is barely at a distance of 50 kilometers, and she has been transferred to the distant place only after stay of one year and eleven months at Bihta. He next submits that it is a malafide transfer, in as much as it has been done to accommodate one Murlidhar Singh. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the Government of India has created a network of Schools all over India, and its day-to-day functioning has been entrusted to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, an autonomous body. It further appears to us that the Sangathan has formulated a policy decision for transfers and postings of school teachers all over India comprising of nearly 1000 schools. It further appears to us that the different stations in India where its schools are located have been 3 divided into different categories of hard and very hard postings. A teacher completing stay of three years in a very hard area is given a choice of posting. Murlidhar Singh, a teacher in Social Sciences, was posted in a very hard area. After he completed three years of postings, he indicated his preference for posting at Ara or Bihta. There was no post of a teacher in Social Science at Ara. Therefore, the petitioner under the policy decision had to be transferred from Bihta to accommodate Murlidhar Singh. We are mindful of the position that the petitioner had completed only one year and eleven months at Bihta. However, her transfer was not to accommodate Murlidhar Singh for a malafide reason. It was the result of execution of a policy decision governing transfers and postings of school teachers in such a large number of schools spread through out the length and breadth of the Country. Furthermore, the petitioner has not made out a case that her transfer from Kolkata to Bihta had resulted in assignment of bottom seniority. 6. We do not find fault with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. Patna High Court, Dated the 23rd April,2010 Sym/NAFR (S.K.Katriar,J) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)