om:95-cl-2025-Aug — Incorrect application of Transfer Policy violates statutory guidelines and constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 16. Non-consideration of request under spouse category due to factual error. Applicant had been unfairly treated. Directed reconsideration of request as per Transfer policy

FRSR

Incorrect application of Transfer Policy violates statutory guidelines and constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 16. Non-consideration of request under spouse category due to factual error. Applicant had been unfairly treated. Directed reconsideration of request as per Transfer policy — The context is about an Original Application (O.A. No. 354 of 2024) regarding a teacher who was incorrectly recorded as having served only two years at a hard station, making him ineligible for trans... — Facts:The Applicant, a Trained Graduate Teacher (WET), was transferred from KV Pune to KV Samana, Jamnagar - a designated hard station-on 8-10-2021 and he joined at the said station on 26-10-2021 after availing vacation from 9-10-2021 to 20-10-2021. As per the KVS Transfer Policy 2021, teachers posted at hard stations become eligible for transfer after completing three years of service. In June 2024, the Applicant attempted to apply online for transfer to KV Jodhpur, his native place, but the system declared him ineligible, citing an incomplete tenure of three years at 'hard station'. This error occurred because the Principal of KV, Samana, Jamnagar wrongly recorded his active stay as only two years, excluding the joining time, despite the transfer order being issued on 8-10-2021.
Although a vacancy existed at KV, BSF Jodhpur and less deserving candidates were transferred there, the Applicant was not considered. The department later justified this based on the 2023 Transfer Policy, but clarified that teachers transferred before 30-6-2023 would still be governed by the 2021 guidelines. The Applicant also highlighted cases of similarly placed teachers who were counted as having completed three years. Despite multiple representations, the error remained unrectified. The Applicant seeks correction of his service record and appropriate consideration for transfer based on completion of three years at the hard station.
The Applicant contended that only due to an incorrect entry made by the Principal (Respondent No. 4), who mistakenly recorded only two years of active stay instead of three, the online system rejected his application. Despite submitting documentary proof, including application snapshots via WhatsApp and filing representations, the error remained unrectified. He further claimed that a teacher with lower merit points was posted to KV Army-2, Jodhpur - his preferred station - rendering the Respondent's action arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. Since his wife is posted as a teacher in the State of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, the Applicant additionally cited DoP&T OM, dated 30-6-2009 concerning spouse-ground transfers and sought transfer to Jodhpur. He also referred to the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 257 of 2024, 266 of 2024 in respect of similarly placed officials and the order passed by Hon'ble CAT, Jodhpur Bench in O.A. No. 301 of 2024.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) is an autonomous organization under the Ministry of Education, governed by its own Education Code, and fully financed by the Government of India. The organization operates over 1256 schools, with service conditions regulated by the KVS Education Code and CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. KVS has its own transfer policy, approved on 30-6-2023, which aims to ensure continuity in teaching, equitable distribution of staff, and efficient functioning. Transfers are based on organizational needs and not a matter of right for employees.
He further contended that the Applicant falsely claimed he didn't apply for transfer in June 2024. Records from the online portal show the Applicant logged in multiple times, filled the form, and selected ‘No' for the transfer option, despite being eligible based on his transfer counts (34). His contention about being unable to apply due to an error by the Principal was refuted with portal data showing a completed application. The Applicant's claim of denial compared to other teachers was dismissed as inapplicable. The Counsel concluded that the Applicant's plea lacks merit and is based on misrepresented facts, and the Original Application should be dismissed in the interest of justice.

FRSR

Incorrect application of Transfer Policy violates statutory guidelines and constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 16. Non-consideration of request under spouse category due to factual error. Applicant had been unfairly treated. Directed reconsideration of request as per Transfer policy — The context is about an Original Application (O.A. No. 354 of 2024) regarding a teacher who was incorrectly recorded as having served only two years at a hard station, making him ineligible for trans... — Facts:The Applicant, a Trained Graduate Teacher (WET), was transferred from KV Pune to KV Samana, Jamnagar - a designated hard station-on 8-10-2021 and he joined at the said station on 26-10-2021 after availing vacation from 9-10-2021 to 20-10-2021. As per the KVS Transfer Policy 2021, teachers posted at hard stations become eligible for transfer after completing three years of service. In June 2024, the Applicant attempted to apply online for transfer to KV Jodhpur, his native place, but the system declared him ineligible, citing an incomplete tenure of three years at 'hard station'. This error occurred because the Principal of KV, Samana, Jamnagar wrongly recorded his active stay as only two years, excluding the joining time, despite the transfer order being issued on 8-10-2021.
Although a vacancy existed at KV, BSF Jodhpur and less deserving candidates were transferred there, the Applicant was not considered. The department later justified this based on the 2023 Transfer Policy, but clarified that teachers transferred before 30-6-2023 would still be governed by the 2021 guidelines. The Applicant also highlighted cases of similarly placed teachers who were counted as having completed three years. Despite multiple representations, the error remained unrectified. The Applicant seeks correction of his service record and appropriate consideration for transfer based on completion of three years at the hard station.
The Applicant contended that only due to an incorrect entry made by the Principal (Respondent No. 4), who mistakenly recorded only two years of active stay instead of three, the online system rejected his application. Despite submitting documentary proof, including application snapshots via WhatsApp and filing representations, the error remained unrectified. He further claimed that a teacher with lower merit points was posted to KV Army-2, Jodhpur - his preferred station - rendering the Respondent's action arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. Since his wife is posted as a teacher in the State of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, the Applicant additionally cited DoP&T OM, dated 30-6-2009 concerning spouse-ground transfers and sought transfer to Jodhpur. He also referred to the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 257 of 2024, 266 of 2024 in respect of similarly placed officials and the order passed by Hon'ble CAT, Jodhpur Bench in O.A. No. 301 of 2024.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) is an autonomous organization under the Ministry of Education, governed by its own Education Code, and fully financed by the Government of India. The organization operates over 1256 schools, with service conditions regulated by the KVS Education Code and CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. KVS has its own transfer policy, approved on 30-6-2023, which aims to ensure continuity in teaching, equitable distribution of staff, and efficient functioning. Transfers are based on organizational needs and not a matter of right for employees.
He further contended that the Applicant falsely claimed he didn't apply for transfer in June 2024. Records from the online portal show the Applicant logged in multiple times, filled the form, and selected ‘No' for the transfer option, despite being eligible based on his transfer counts (34). His contention about being unable to apply due to an error by the Principal was refuted with portal data showing a completed application. The Applicant's claim of denial compared to other teachers was dismissed as inapplicable. The Counsel concluded that the Applicant's plea lacks merit and is based on misrepresented facts, and the Original Application should be dismissed in the interest of justice.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text