om:72-cl-2025-Jun — In matters of transfer, the Tribunal cannot interfere with the order unless there are violations of statutory provisions. There was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of transfer as well as the consequential orders and therefore the instant OA was liable to be dismissed

In matters of transfer, the Tribunal cannot interfere with the order unless there are violations of statutory provisions. There was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of transfer as well as the consequential orders and therefore the instant OA was liable to be dismissed — The applicant filed an objection against her transfer order, contending that it was against Transfer Policy 2023 and other regulations, as she was close to retirement and had not been considered for ... — Facts:The Applicant initially joined as P.G. Teacher in Hindi subject at Kendriya Vidyalaya Chakeri, Kanpur in 1993. Thereafter she was transferred to various places and lastly she joined as Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya New Cantt. Prayagraj on 18-1-2019. By Order, dated 25-6-2024, the Applicant was transferred to P.M. Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2 Satna, Jabalpur Region along with 10 other Principals. The Applicant was due for her retirement on superannuation on 31-3-2025. Against the said order, the Applicant therefore represented on 26-6-2024 to the Respondent No. 1. As there was no response, the Applicant filed O.A. No. 646 of 2024 before this Tribunal which was disposed of on 2-7-2024 with a direction to the Respondents to consider her representation and pass a speaking order. But her request was rejected by Order, dated 4-7-2024 and she was relieved on the same day. The Applicant once again challenged the impugned Orders, dated 20-6-2024, 4-7-2024 and the relieving Order, dated 4-7-2024.

The Applicant contended that she was going to superannuate on 31-3-2025 and non-consideration of her request for retention at the same post is contrary to Clause 3

(iv) and

(v) (less than three years to retire) of the Transfer Policy, 2023. The Applicant also contended that the tenure of Principal may be extended up to a maximum of 7 years and the Respondents have not properly considered her performance. The Applicant further stated that though she had given her choice for stations viz. Varanasi, Kanpur, Lucknow, Bareilly and Jabalpur, her request had not been considered. The Applicant lastly contended that the impugned Orders 25-6-2024 and 4-7-2024 were contrary to each other and that it was a stigmatic transfer and the transfer order was discriminatory. The Applicant also stated that the Annual Audit was in progress and that if the Applicant was not present, it would adversely affect her future.

On the other hand, the Respondents contended that all employees are liable for transfer anywhere in India and that the transfer orders were issued only in accordance with the transfer policy 2023. The Respondents also contended that Clause 3 of the Transfer Policy relates to transfer on request before completion of prescribed tenure and Clause 4 provided for extension of service beyond five years in the same station based on academic excellence, effective administration and their performance in the school. The Respondents contended that the Applicant was not eligible for extension of service in the same station as her tenure was not up to the desired standard. The Respondents also stated that she had been posted to a smaller Vidyalaya so that she can handle the same in a proper manner and that there was no mala fide on the part of the transferring authority. As regards the contention of the Applicant that annual Audit was in progress and her presence was necessary, the Respondents maintain that it was a regular feature which can be undertaken under the supervision of the incoming Principal and the presence of the Applicant is not a necessity.