Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13271 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rambir Singh Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar,Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Narendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Deepbala Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3.
Sri Narendra Pratap Singh has tried to intervene in the matter on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3 but he has no locus standi to represent the respondents no.2 and 3 as according to the decision dated 26.07.2019 passed in Writ - C No. 24528 of 2019, the respondents no.2 and 3 are only to be represented by the counsel of the Union of India and not by any private counsel.
The petitioner has preferred this petition for quashing of the order dated 05.08.2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal by which his original application against the order of his transfer has been dismissed as premature and not maintainable with the direction to decide his representation dated 03.08.2019 filed against the order of transfer, within two months.
The petitioner is a Principal of Navodaya Vidyalaya posted in Agra. By the order impugned in the original application dated 29.07.2019 his suspension was revoked and he has been transferred to Rampur.
The petitioner challenged the aforesaid transfer order before the Tribunal on the ground that it has been passed by an authority not competent to pass the same and that it is in violation of the transfer policy inasmuch as a Principal cannot be transferred as he has completed 10 years at a place.
We have perused the order of transfer which has been filed by the petitioner himself.
The said order dated 27.07.2019 is Annexure 5 at page 56 and it is an order passed by the Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. The said order has been communicated to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner, therefore, it cannot be said that the order of transfer has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner rather it is an order passed by the Commissioner and as such is not without jurisdiction.
As regards the second contention that the petitioner cannot be transferred in violation of transfer policy or that he has some personal difficulties, these can be taken care of by the competent authority while considering the representation of the petitioner.
The fact remains that the transfer of the petitioner is not in violation of statutory provisions and as such it requires no interference by the Court. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality on the part of the Tribunal in dismissing the original application and in directing the representation of the petitioner dated 03.08.2019 preferred against the aforesaid transfer order be decided within a period of two months. However, the observation of the Tribunal that the original application is premature and is not maintainable, is without substance as no such reason to that effect has been assigned. Moreover, the original application against the order of transfer lies before the Tribunal and merely for the reason that a representation is pending it cannot be said to be premature.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the observations as made above.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 S.Sharma