KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN versus DAMODAR PRASAD PANDEY AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 578 · Decided: 20-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
KENDRIY A VIDY ALAYA SAN GA THAN 
v. 
DAMODAR PRASAD PANDEY AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Transfer-A teacher under Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan challenging 
his transfer from State of MP. to J&K alleging ma la fides-Tribunal found 
the allegations not established-High Court holding that there was no 
illegality in the order of transfer and that there was no reason to disturb the 
teacher who replaced the applicant-However, High Court directing that 
applicant be given a posting in State of MP-Held, High Court's direction 
not sustainable and is vacated 
Ambani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa, (1995] Suppl. 4 SCC 169; 
Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, AIR (1993) SC 2444 and Union of India & 
Ors. v. Janardan Debanath & Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 245, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6207 of2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.0.2003 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 3496 of 2003. 
Rakesh K. Khanna, Ms. Rashmi Khanna, Shashank Shekhar and Surya 
Kant for the Appellant. 
Raj Kumar Gupta and Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. : Leave granted. 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
The respondent No. 1, while working as a teacher in Sanskrit in 
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, (AOC) Jabalpur, M.P. questioned his transfer 
H 
to J & K. Smt. Sushila Pandey, respondent No. 5 in the present appeal was 
578 
-
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN v. D.P. PANDEY [PASAYAT, J.] 
579 
transferred to Jabalpur in place of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 
filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur 
(in short 'Tribunal'). The transfer order was mainly assailed on the ground 
of alleged malafides and to be a punitive transfer issued in colourable exercise 
of power. The Tribunal noticed that the allegations of malafides were not 
established and the transfer was not vitiated on any score. Plea of the present 
respondent No. I that he and wife should be posted at same place was also 
. held to be not acceptable. It was observed that the situation where the husband 
and the wife can be kept together would always depend upon the availability 
of vacancies and administrative exigencies. It was noted that the present 
respondent No. 1 and his wife had worked together for nearly 17 years at 
a particular place. It was noticed that respondent No. 5 had worked in J & 
K for about 15 years and she was being given a posting to come back to M.P., 
i.e., to her original place of posting. The original application was dismissed. 
The order of dismissal was challenged before the High Court of M.P. at 
Jabalpur .. The High Court noted that there was no reason to disturb the 
transfer of 5th respondent and also held that there was no illegality in the 
order of transfer so far ·as the respondent No. 1 is concerned. After having 
come to such a conclusion, the High Court gave a direction that the present 
respondent No. 1 shall be given a }.!Osting in the State of M.P. It is this part 
of the direction given by the High Court which is assailed by the appellant 
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan. There is no appearance on behalf of the 
respondent. There was an interim order of stay passed by this Court on 
19.3.2004 so far as the order of the High Court is concerned. 
Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with 
by the Courts unlei;s it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or visited by malafide 
or infraction of any prescribed norms of principles governing the transfer (see 
Ambani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa, [1995] Suppl 4 SCC 169). Unless the 
order of transfer is visited by malafide or is made in violation of operative 
guidelines, the Court cannot interfere with it. (see Union of India v. S.L 
Abbas, AIR (1993) SC 2444. Who should be transferred and posttd where 
is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Unless the order of 
transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of operative any 
guidelines or rules the courts should not ordinarily interfere with it. In Union 
of India & Ors. v. Janardan Debanath & Anr., (2004] 4 SCC 245 it was 
observed as follows : 
"No government servant or employee of a public undertaking 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
580 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place 
or pla
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.