HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No. 15046 OF 2001 Tuesday, the Sixth Day of July, Two Thousand and Ten Between B.Chandrasekhara Reddy Petitioner AND Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi, Rep. By Joint Director (Admn) A-39, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-48 and others Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Assailing the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, dated 10.7.2001 disposing O.A. No. 952 of 2001 and Batch, filed by the petitioner herein and other similarly situated persons, reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents explaining the difficulty in accepting the transfer, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher in Telugu on 9.9.1991 after undergoing selection process by the third respondent in Hyderabad Region. It is his case that all the teaching staff below the cadre of Post Graduate Teacher are treated as Regional Cadre and as a unit and there is no provision in the Rules to transfer an employee from one region to another. On a move from the second respondent to transfer on the basis of the transfer policy, the petitioner and others filed OA No. 622 of 2008, which was dismissed on 21.6.2000. Subsequently, by order dated 27.6.2001, whereby the petitioner was transferred from Jawahar Navbodaya Vidyalaya, Kurnool District to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Samastipur District, Bihar State, he filed the present O.A. inter alia contending that the second respondent is not competent to transfer him inasmuch as the Trained Graduate Teachers cannot be transferred outside their region. It is the case of the respondents that the validity of the Transfer Policy dated 9.4.1999 had been challenged by the petitioner and others in O.A. No. 622 of 2000 and the Tribunal by its order dated 21.6.2001 has upheld the same. It is also submitted that the Institutions being Centralised Institutions, in order to promote national integration by transferring the trained Graduate Teacher in III Language/Regional Language to Hindi speaking areas, such transfers cannot be said to be illegal or bad. The Tribunal by the order impugned, dismissed the O.A. reserving liberty to the petitioner to make representation explaining his difficulty within two days and directed the respondents to dispose of the same within two weeks. When this writ petition has come up for admission on 31.7.2001, a Division Bench of this Court while issuing rule nisi, has ordered status obtaining as on that date to be maintained. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner out of the region and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, while it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that in terms of clause 4 of the Revised Transfer Policy, the rotational transfers shall be made in accordance with the length of services rendered in their native States or outside the native states. He further submits that such transfers are ordered to Hindi speaking areas within an intention to promote national integration and, as such, the transfers cannot be challenged. We also had an occasion to go through the transfer policy framed by the respondents. Clause 4 thereof says a provision of rotational transfers for III language teachers have been made in the revised transfer policy in order to accommodate the transfer of such of the III language teacher working in the Hindi-Speaking States to their native states on completion of the fixed tenure of five years so as to provide an opportunity for transfer of these teachers and also to ensure that studies of students in Hindi-speaking states in the III language subjects as well as the migrated students of corresponding states in Hindu speaking states may not suffer and, as such, the Regional Language Teachers are liable for rotational transfer between the States where their language is taught and Hindi speaking states. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that all the teachers who have been transferred have joined their respective place of posting except the present petitioner, who is continued by virtue of the order of status quo granted by this court on 31.7.2001. As stated earlier, by virtue of the order dated 21.6.2001, upholding the transfer policy in respect of the trained graduate teachers, the petitioner cannot assail his transfer to Hindi speaking areas. In terms of the guidelines for rotational transfer, on transfer, the seniority of the petitioner shall be protected in his region of recruitment. Having given our anxious consideration, we do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________ Justice P.S.Narayana July 06, 2010 MAS.