THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.18056 of 2010 11-08-2010 BETWEEN; Smt.D.Bala ...Petitioner vs. Navodya vidyala Samithi, New Delhi, rep. by its Commissioner & Others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.18056 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The unsuccessful applicant in O.A.No.720 of 2009 is before thi Court challenging an order dated 13-07-2010 of the Central Administrativ Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (the Tribunal). The order dated 20-08-2009 o the 4th respondent herein was challenged before the Tribunal, relievin the petitioner, a Trained Graduate Teacher from the Jawahar Navoday Vidyalaya (JNV), Wargal, Medak District on transfer to JNV, Jalore Distric Rajasthan. O.A.No.720 of 2009 was the second round of litigation by th petitioner challenging her transfer. The petitioner earlier filed O.A.No.34 of 2007 against a Circular of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) (a Apex Body administrating several Navodaya Vidyalayas in the country dated 13-04-2007 whereby Regional Language Teachers were called fo counselling for the purpose of transfers, to Regional Office Bhopal on 06 05-2007. In O.A.No.342 of 2007 the Tribunal granted an interim direction t the respondents to maintain status quo insofar as the petitioner-transfere is concerned. Eventually, O.A.342 of 2007 was disposed of by an orde dated 06-02-2009 directing the respondents to consider the case of th petitioner again including on the points raised by her and observing tha since it is a policy matter the respondents should take appropriate decisio and communicate the same to the petitioner, at the earliest. The operativ portion of the order in O.A.No.342 of 2007 reads as under:- “We are, therefore, of the view that the same may be considere once again duly considering the points raised by the applicant herein Since it is a policy matter the respondents should take appropriat decision and communicate the same to the applicant herein at th earliest. Interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated.” Thereafter, the respondents by an office order dated 20-08-200 decided to uphold the transfer policy set out in the Samiti’s proceeding dated 13-04-2007 and to transfer the petitioner to Jalore in Rajasthan from her present posting in Medak district which was kept in abeyance earlie pursuant to the interim order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.342 of 2007. Questioning the order dated 20-08-2009, the present O.A 720 o 2009 was filed by the petitioner. The petitioner also challenged Clause. of the NSV transfer guidelines, dated 13-04-2007. The NVS issued revised rotational transfer policy for Regiona Language Teachers on 13-04-2007. Clause.5 of the policy (challenged by the petitioner) reads as under:- “Husband and wife working in JNVs in their native stat having different subject may not be considered for rotationa transfer, keeping in view the government policy of posting o husband and wife at on place.” The general tenor of the policy dated 13-04-2007 is that Regiona Language Teachers working in other Regions or Hindi speaking State who completed five years of stay outside their native States are to b considered for transfer to the native States and Teachers who are workin in native States for five years and above could be transferred to the places; the rotational transfers shall be restricted to the extent of th Teachers working in Hindi speaking States who request for transfer to the native States; transfer of Regional Language Teachers posted outside th native States will also be made against the vacancies available in the native States; rotational transfers shall be made in accordance with th length of services rendered in their native/outside States; and on rotationa transfer, seniority shall be protected in the Region of recruitment. Clause.5 on a true and fair construction of its phraseology exclude the general scheme of rotational transfer only in cases of husband an wife working in JNVs in the native State having different subjects, and t this extent in conformity with Government policy of posting husband an wife at one place. Indisputably, in view of the transfer policy dated 13-04-2007 th petitioner is liable to be transferred from Medak to Rajasthan. What i contended is that since NVS had adopted Government of India’s polic earlier in transferring her ( she was initially recruited as Trained Graduat Teacher, Telugu at JNV in 1990 at Hurda, Bhilwara District of Rajastha and was transferred to Wargal, Medak District in October 1997, at he request to join her husband who was working in the South Centra Railway, Secunderabad), the Samiti cannot arbitrarily alter the polic without rational reasons restricting the benefit of accommodating husban and wife at the same place of posting, only to spouses working in JNVs without considering the convenience of spouses working in othe Department of the Central Government as well. The challenge to Clause.5 of the policy of transfer dated 13-04 2007 is substrated on the premise that the NVS should follow the policy o the Government of India since it is an instrumentality of the Government o India and since it had initially acted the Government of India’s policy (i transferring her to Medak). This is a contention that is stated to b rejected. It is not demonstrated either before the Tribunal or before thi Court that the JNV’s or NVS is required to implement a policy of transfer identical to the policy of the Government of India. There is no instrument b which this obligation of conformity to Government of India’s transfer polic is obligated on the NVS or the JNV’s opening under the administrativ control of the NVS. It is axiomatic that an instrumentality of the State ma have its own policy. Insofar as such policy is not irrational, that would b legitimate and operational. Having regard to the limited scope and exten of the operations of the JNV’s under the administrative control of the NVS it could have its own transfer policy. The NVS has issued the transfe policy dated 13-04-2007, as best suited to its institutional requirements This policy per se does not commend itself to this court, including Clause. thereof to be perverse warranting judicial interference. It is axiomatic tha policy choices are normally within the domain of the executive. Th judicial branch would not second guess or alter administrative policy as a appellate body. Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner woul contend that the Tribunal failed to rationally consider the petitioner’ application on the twin aspects of challenge presented: (a) the validity o Clause.5 of the transfer policy dated 13-04-2007 and (b) the failure of th respondents in adhering to earlier directions of the Tribunal dated 06-02 2009 in O.A.No.342 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the Tribuna directed the respondents to take appropriate decision and communicat the same to the petitioner at the earliest. It is contended that the orde dated 20-08-2009 whereby the petitioner was substantively relieved from her present posting in JNV, Wargal, Medak District to report to Jalor District of Rajasthan, does not record reasons duly considering the point raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal on the basis of which th Tribunal had disposed of O.A.No.342 of 2007. Both the contentions of the petitioner do not commend acceptance b this Court. The contention that the orde dated 20-08-2009 is in transgression of th earlier direction of the Tribunal dated 06-02-2009 is misconceived. requires to be noticed that the Tribunal had merely directed the officia respondents to duly consider the points raised by the applicant. There wa no direction that the product of consideration should also b communicated to the petitioner. The second part of direction of th Tribunal was that the appropriate decision with regard to the shifting of th petitioner should be communicated to the petitioner. This is axiomatic. the petitioner is to be transferred the decision regarding transfer must b communicated. Nothing more can be read into the direction of the Tribuna dated 06-02-2009 since it could not have been the intention from th Tribunal that the Samiti should enter into a dialogue with one of th employees/ the petitioner as to its transfer policy. There is no suc administrative practice and we are satisfied that the Tribunal did no generate a new administrative practice of directing the official respondent to communicate a reasoned decision as to the rationaliy of the transfe policy dated 13-04-2007. Insofar as the validity of Clause.5 of the transfer policy is concerned it requires to be noticed that the order of the Tribunal did refer to the offic order dated 10-08-2009 wherein the Samiti took a decision to uphold th policy. The order dated 10-08-2009 records detailed reasons for reiteratio of the policy dated 13-04-2007 after due consideration of th representations of the petitioner. In the order dated 10-08-2009 the Sami records:- “JNVs are co-educational fully residential institutions where all th students and staff have to stay together in the same campus Arrangements for stay and education of wards of all teachers are als provided in the campus itself. As per the policy there is only one NV i each district having ½ posts of teacher in concerned subject. Since NV are fully residential where teachers have to stay in the campus and a facilities including accommodation is provided by the Samiti, Samiti ha been encouraging spouses to work together in the same NVs an accordingly first preference in posting is given to the spouses. Th instructions issued by the Government of India on posting of husband an wife at the same station provide that where posts at the appropriate lev exists within the same department at the same station, the husband an wife may be posted together in order to enable them to live normal fami life and look after the welfare of their children specially till their children ar 10 years of age, if posts at that level exists in the organisation at th same station and if no administrative problems are expected to result a a consequence. This policy is in the nature of guidelines which are bein followed by the Samiti as far as possible. As admitted by the applican herself, she has already availed of the benefit of this policy during her pos at JNV, Medak. The rotational transfer policy for transfer of Regiona Language teachers is linked with migration of students which is a integral part of the scheme of NVs. It is also considered appropriate b the Samiti to provide opportunities to Regional Language teacher working outside their native state to come back and work in their nativ state for which a tenure of 5 years has been prescribed. This is uniform applied to all the teachers except spouses in the NVs in view of th considerations above. It is also noted that in the present case th husband of the applicant is working in a different organisation and i already staying at a different station and opportunities for education for he children are also ensured through admission in a NV in her native state.” The reasons recorded by the JNV for reiteration of its policy dated 13 04-2007, restricting the policy of accommodation of spouses at the sam place only infavour of JNVs employees, is consistent with th administrative policy in the conduct of the functional charter of Teachers o JNVS. On the aforesaid analyses, this court discerns no error in the exercis of discretion by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderaba Bench in rejecting O.A.No.720 of 2009, warranting interference unde Article 226 of the Constitution. There are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 11th AUGUST 2010. TSNR