IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.10585 of 2008 Between: T.J.Reddy, S/o. T.Rami Reddy, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Picket, Secunderabad, R/o. Flat No.101, Sumitra Apartments, Phase-II, Tribulgherry, Secunderabad-500 015. ...PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India, (rep by Chariman0, Kendriya Vidalaya Sangathan(H.Q) Sastry Bhawan, New Delhi. 2 The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidalaya Sangathan(H.Q), 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 016. 3 The Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidalaya Sangathan(R.O), Picket, Secunderabad. 4 The Assistant Commissioner,Principal, Kendriya Vidalaya,Picket, Secunderabad-500 009. 5 The Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidalaya Sangathan(R.O), Khanapara, Jawahar Nagar, Guwahati- 781002. 6 The Principal, Kendriya Vidayalaya, Air Force Station, Jorhat, Assam. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the impugned order passed in O.A.No.673/2007, dated 31.03.2008 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and also in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.B.SUDARSHAN Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.10585 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The petitioner was appointed as Yoga Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya in the year 1981. He was initially posted in an institution at Visakhapatnam. In the year 2002, he was transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Picket, Secunderabad. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a charge sheet and ultimately, the same resulted in imposition of punishment of stoppage of increments vide order dated 21.08.2006. The third respondent issued order dated 25.04.2007 transferring the petitioner from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Picket, Secunderabad to Kendriya Vidyalaya, No.1, AFS, Jorhat. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.673 of 2007 in Hyderabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal. The O.A. was dismissed on 31.03.2008. Hence, this Writ Petition. Heard Sri N.B.Sudarshan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner had urged several grounds including the one in relation to the validity of the orders imposing punishment on the petitioner. He has also urged that the Transfer Policy evolved by the respondent is arbitrary and discriminatory. It hardly needs an emphasis that transfer is an incidence of service and an individual employed in Kendriya Vidyalaya is liable to be transferred to any part of the country. The respondents evolved a Transfer Policy stipulating various conditions and contingencies. Relevant for the instant case is clause 8 (4), which empowers the respondent to transfer an employee on grounds of misconduct or unsatisfactory performance, or imposition of minor penalty. In the instant case, the petitioner has already completed the normal tenure of five {5} years at Secunderabad. In addition to that, he was imposed a minor penalty vide orders dated 21.08.2006. The said order became final. Though it is open to the respondents to transfer the petitioner on routine basis, they have invoked clause 8 (4) of the Transfer Policy. The petitioner is not able to demonstrate before us that the transfer is in violation of any clause of the Transfer Policy. One important factor, which needs to be taken note of, is that the order of transfer was passed on 25.04.2007. The petitioner approached the Tribunal only in the month of July 2007. In between, he has even claimed the transfer T.A. and D.A. being a sum of Rs.29,000/- (Rupees twenty nine thousand only). The Tribunal had undertaken extensive discussion, both, as to the validity of the order of transfer, as well as the conduct of the petitioner. We are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 21st May 2008 RRB