IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.20524 of 2008 Between: Sushma Chaturvedhi D/o. N.N. Chaturvedhi R/o. Musrambagh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, rep. by its Commissioner, 18-Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110602. 2 The Deputy Commissioner (Acad), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18-Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110602. 3 The Education Officer, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18-Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110602. 4 The Education Officer, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Hyderabad at Picket, Secunderabad 500 009. 5 The Principal, Education Officer, Kendriya Vidyalaya CRPF Barkas, Hyderabad-500005. 6 The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya AFS, OJHAR State of Maharastra .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to declare rule 8(4) in chapter VII of Article 71 of KVS Education code and consequential orders of respondent No.3 bearing No.F-11029/02-KVS (HQ) (Est.) dt. 08.09.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents from transferring the petitioner in pursuance of transfer order bearing No.F-11029/02-KVS (HQ) (Est.) dt. 08.09.2008 by quashing the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SURYA PRAKASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR. B. NARASIMHA SHARMA The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.20524 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the order No.F- 11029/02-KVS(HQ)/(Estt.II), dated 08.09.2008, passed by the 3rd respondent – Education Oﬃcer, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi, whreunder, the petitioner, who has been working as a Trained Graduate Teacher in English, was transferred from Kendirya Vidyalaya, CRPF Barkas, (Hyderabad) to Kendriya Vidyalaya, AFS Ojhar, (Bombay), on administrative grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transfer is made not on administrative grounds, but in view of certain misconduct alleged to have been committed by her during the meeting convened by the 2nd respondent – Deputy Commissioner (Acad), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi, that the respondents have not followed the procedure and have not conducted any enquiry into to the allegations leveled against the petitioner, but simply relied on alleged “Minutes of Meeting” that was prepared by two Principals, who accompanied the 2nd respondent, subsequent to the meeting, in the absence of teachers. Learned counsel further submitted that the whole exercise was made to wreck vengeance against the petitioner, and that apart, transfer is made in the middle of the academic year against the interest of teachers and the students as well. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also submitted a representation, dated 12.09.2008, to the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi, seeking to set aside the impugned transfer order, and so far no action has been taken thereon. Per contra, Sri Narasimha Sharma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, strenuously contended that the very writ petition is not maintainable and that the petitioner, at the ﬁrst instance, has to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, by way of ﬁling an Original Application, to seek redressal of her grievance, and instead of that the petitioner has directly approached this Court, on which ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the transfer is purely on administrative grounds and no interference is warranted by this Court. It is also submitted that pursuant to the impugned order, the petitioner was relieved on 10.09.2008, however, in view of the interim order, dated 19.09.2008, passed by this Court, she is being continued at Hyderabad as of now. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also conceded that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the case on hand, in view of the notiﬁcation under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, but according to him, he could know the same only after filing of this writ petition. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record. It is an admitted fact that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi, was notiﬁed under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and as such the primary authority to try the cases pertaining to its Institution at Hyderabad is the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. Be that as it may, since the issue involved is only with regard to transfer of the petitioner and as the learned counsel on either side have been heard in detail, instead of directing the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, I deem it appropriate to give a quietus to this litigation at this stage itself. Accordingly, the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi, is directed to consider the representation purported to have been submitted by the petitioner on 12.09.2008, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. However, it is made clear that this order cannot be treated as a precedent in any future case. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 24th September, 2008. Note:- Issue CC today. BO IBL