Facts
The applicant, a 56-year-old Primary Teacher (PRT) at PM Shri KV, Masjid Moth, challenged a transfer order dated 11.05.2026 which posted her to KV ONGC, Dehradun.
Source reference: p. 1-2The applicant sought a transfer to KV Roorkee, citing her preference, applicable Transfer Policy, and the fact that she is due for superannuation within three years.
Source reference: p. 2-3She highlighted a vacant post at KV Roorkee and a previous coordinate bench ruling (Chennai Bench) in OA No. 310/01325/2025 regarding sympathetic consideration for similar cases.
Source reference: p. 3The Tribunal had previously directed respondents on 18.05.2026 to seek instructions on the availability of the vacancy at Roorkee.
Source reference: p. 2-3Issues
1. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the applicant’s representation for transfer to a specific station (KV Roorkee) based on her proximity to retirement and the availability of a vacant post.
Source reference: p. 2-4Law Applied
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding applications for the redressal of grievances.
Source reference: p. 2Principles of "Reasoned and Speaking Orders" in administrative actions.
Source reference: p. 2, 4KVS Transfer Policy and LTR (Long Term Residuary) norms which provide guidelines for teacher postings.
Source reference: p. 2, 4Persuasive value of the Chennai Bench precedent in OA No. 310/01325/2025, which mandates sympathetic consideration for transfer requests during the Annual General Transfer process subject to vacancy.
Source reference: p. 3Reasoning
The court noted that while the applicant was assigned to Dehradun (one of her choices), she specifically sought Roorkee due to her impending retirement.
Source reference: p. 3The respondents conceded that her representation dated 11.05.2026 was pending and agreed to consider it "sympathetically".
Source reference: p. 3The Tribunal determined that since a vacancy was alleged at KV Roorkee, the most equitable remedy was to mandate the competent authority to adjudicate the specific representation in light of KVS policies and the specific hardships mentioned by the teacher.
Source reference: p. 4No merit-based adjudication was made on the validity of the transfer order itself, as the court focused on the procedural requirement for the executive to respond to the applicant's grievances first.
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Tribunal did not quash the transfer order but directed the competent authority to consider and decide the applicant's pending representation dated 11.05.2026 regarding the vacancy at KV Roorkee.
The court ordered the respondents to pass a "reasoned and speaking order" within ten days of receiving the judgment.
Source reference: p. 4Crucially, the Tribunal held that no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant until the representation is decided.
Source reference: p. 4The O.A. was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
Savita VermavsKENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN (KVS)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in