High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 1316/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. K. MUSAHARY Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the pet itioners, and Mr. G. Baishya, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents-cav eator. The caveat shall stand discharged. 2. 3. By this common order, we propose to dispose of all the writ petitions en listed above inasmuch as all these writ petitions have arisen out of various ord ers passed, in various Original Applications (in short, ’OA’), by the learned Ce ntral Administrative Tribunal (in short, ’the Tribunal’), Guwahati Bench, whereb y the learned Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to post, by way of transf er, the respondents herein to their respective States of choice. In order to correctly appreciate the real issue, involved in these prese 4. nt writ petitions, it is apposite to take into account the material facts, which have given rise to these writ petitions made under Article 226 of the Constitut ion of India. The material facts are, therefore, set out, in brief, as under: (i) The respondents herein had been working in the posts of Principal of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (in short, ’JNV’), at different places, in the North Eastern Region. In terms of the relevant police decisions, circulated by JNV, a person is given the facility to opt for two, out of four, places of posting of his choi ce after he has served in a hard and difficult station for three years or more. Having served for a period of more than three years at hard and difficult statio ns, the respondents herein applied for posting in the States of their choice. (ii) With the grievance that they had not been accommodated in the States of the ir choice, the respondents applied to the learned Tribunal seeking necessary rel iefs, which gave rise to a number of OAs, out of which OA No. 133/2012 having be en filed by R. Prem Kumar (respondent in WP(C) No. 1316/2013), OA No. 185/2012 h aving been filed by Saseendran C. K. (respondent in WP(C) No. 1317/2012), OA No. 183/2012 having been filed by Balakrishan V. N. (respondent in WP(C) No. 1318/2 013), OA No. 184/2012 having been filed by M. V. Ramana (respondent in WP(C) No. 1319/2013) and O.A. No. 111/2012 having been filed by K. Parthiban (respondent in WP(C) No. 1320/2013) respectively. 5. The States of their choice, which the respondents had opted for, as plac es of their transfer along with the respective dates of the orders of transfer, orders of joining and orders passed by the learned Tribunal are reproduced below : Place of choice Place of transfer Date of transfer OA No. WP (C) No. Date of joining Impugned order 1316/2013 R. Prem Kumar 133/2012 17.06.2011 1317/2013 Saseendran C.K. JNV, Agra 1318/2013 Balakrishnan V. N. 16.06.2011 25.07.2011 Karnataka, Kerala JNV, Junagarh 08.10.2012 185/2012 05.09.2011 183/2012 Kerala, Karnataka, Hyderabad 20.12.2012 Kerela, Karnataka, Goa JNV, Fat ehabad, Haryana 16.06.2011 1319/2013 M. V. Ramana dhinagar, Gujrat 1320/2013 K. Parthiban 16.06.2011 16.07.2011 184/2012 17.06.2011 111/2012 23.10.2011 11.12.2012 Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka 15.07.2011 Karnataka, Maharastra 11.12.2012 08.10.2012 JNV, Gan JNV, Nagpur Before we come to the merit of the orders, which stand impugned in this 6. set of writ petitions, we may point out that the policy decisions, with regard t o the chosen place of posting, are governed by two Circulars issued by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samity, the said two Circulars having been issued on 30.03.2009 and 22 .06.2010. While giving a choice, for the State of posting, to an employee, who may have served in hard and difficult station, both the Circulars clearly stated , inter alia, (cid:28) & &Transfer shall be considered only against the available vacanci es (cid:29). 7. The common stand of the respondents, in all the OAs, had been that there was no vacancy available for the posts of Principal of JNV at the chosen places of posting and, hence, the applicants could not be accommodated at the respecti
Legal Reasoning
ve places of their choice. 8. The learned Tribunal took the view that in terms of the policy decision of JNV, the applicants (i.e., the respondents herein) ought to have been given p osting at the places of their choice and as the same had not been done, it was i llegal and unfair. The learned Tribunal, therefore, directed the present petitio ners, who were respondents in the OAs, to accommodate the applicants (i.e., the respondents herein) at the places of their choice. Aggrieved by the direction, s o issued, the present writ petitions have been filed, under Article, 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the orders, which were passed, as indicated her einbefore, by the learned Tribunal. We have already pointed above that the Circular, dated 30.03.2009, as we 9. ll as the Circular, dated 22.06.2010, made it clear that the request for chosen place of posting would be considered only against available vacancy. The learned Tribunal, though a fact finding body, did not determine if any vacancy had exis ted at the places, where the applicants (i.e., the respondents herein) had sough t for postings. Without determination of the question as to whether vacancies we re available at the places of choice of the applicants (i.e., the respondents he rein) and without coming to a definite conclusion that such vacancy or vacancies did exist on the date of the transfer of the applicants, the learned Tribunal c ould not have directed the present petitioners to accommodate, within a specific period, as fixed by the learned Tribunal, the respondents herein at their respe
Legal Reasoning
ctive places of choice. 10. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners have made out a case calli ng for interference with the impugned orders, Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senio r counsel, appearing for the petitioners, have presented before us a letter, dat ed 01.04.2013, whereby Navodaya Vidyalaya Samity has communicated to their learn ed counsel that, in the State of Karnataka, there are two places, where the post s of Principal are available, these two places being Raichur and Shimoga and, as far as the State of Kerala is concerned, only one post of Principal of JNV is v acant and the place happens to be Palghat and, similarly, so far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, only one post of Principal of JNV is vacant, the p lace being Medak. 11. Situated thus, it becomes transparent that so far as the applicant in OA No. 111/2012 is concerned, namely, K. Parthiban, the State of posting, opted by him, was Karnataka and Maharastra and he has been posted at JNV, Nagpur. Since Nagpur falls within the territorial limits of the State of Maharastra, the griev ance of Shri K. Parthiban, who was the petitioner in OA No.111/2012 and responde nt in WP(C) No.1320/2013, has been met and his writ application needs to be, the refore, dismissed. So far as the applicants in OA Nos. 133/2012, 185/2012, 183/2012 and 184 12. /2012, are concerned, it is possible, in the light of the information made avail able, now, by the petitioners, to accommodate the respondents herein in the Stat es of their choice. In fact, this position is not disputed before us on behalf o f the parties concerned. 13. In view of the above, the petitioners need to be accorded an opportunity , in the light of the available vacancies in the posts of Principal of JNV, to t ransfer and post the respondents, in WP(C) No. 1316/2013, WP(C) No. 1317/2012, W P(C) No. 1318/2013 and WP(C) No. 1319/2013, namely, R. Prem Kumar, Saseendran C. K., Balakrishan V. N. and M. V. Ramana, respectively, at the respective States of their choice. 14. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest o f justice, the petitioners are hereby directed to accommodate the respondents he rein, namely, R. Prem Kumar (respondent in WP(C) No. 1316/2013), Saseendran C. K . (respondent in WP(C) No. 1317/2012), Balakrishan V. N. (respondent in WP(C) No . 1318/2013) and M. V. Ramana (respondent in WP(C) No. 1319/2013) in the respect ive States of their choice. 15. With the above modification in the orders passed by the learned Tribunal , in the Original Applications, namely, OA Nos. 133/2012, 185/2012, 183/2012 and 184/2012, all these writ petitions, namely, WP(C) No. 1316/2013, WP(C) No. 1317
Decision
/2012, WP(C) No. 1318/2013 and WP(C) No. 1319/2013 are hereby disposed of. 16. Since K. Parthiban, who was applicant in OA No. 111/2012 and respondent in WP (C) No. 1320/2013, has been posted, as already discussed above, in the Sta te of his choice, the impugned direction, dated 08.10.2012, passed by the learne d Tribunal has to be set aside and we order accordingly. 17. So far as the remaining writ petitions are concerned, the directions, gi ven by the learned Tribunal, shall stand modified to the extent as we have indic ated above. 18. ns held above, shall be completed within a period of six weeks from today. 19. ll stand disposed of. 20. With the above observations and directions, all these writ petitions sha The exercise of making orders of transfer, in the light of the discussio No order as to costs.