CAT Directs KVS To Hear Agra Teacher Sent To Bengal As Surplus, Decide Fresh Transfer Plea Within 30 Days

The applicant, a TGT (Hindi) at KV No. 2, Agra Cantt., challenged the order dated 16 April 2025 transferring him as surplus staff to KV Sukna, West Bengal, and the consequential relieving order dated 21 April 2025.

He alleged, among other things, that his redeployment did not comply with the KVS Transfer Guidelines, 2023, and sought reconsideration for a suitable posting, including within the same region. He had submitted a representation on 18 April 2025, which had not been decided; he nevertheless joined at KV Sukna. The respondents stated that his post had been declared surplus and that his preferences and redeployment had been processed through the KVS online system under the Transfer Policy.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for the Original Application.

The Tribunal applied the principle that transfer is ordinarily an incidence of service and that an employee has no right to a particular posting; redeployment of an employee declared surplus lies primarily within the competent authority’s administrative domain, subject to the applicable policy and guidelines.

It also referred to Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner for the principle that an administrative order must ordinarily be judged by the reasons stated in it, which cannot subsequently be supplemented or improved through a counter-affidavit.

The Tribunal noted the respondents’ explanation that the applicant’s post was declared surplus and that his redeployment was processed under the KVS Transfer Policy. It did not adjudicate the applicant’s substantive challenges to the transfer, including his claims concerning regional redeployment or the computation of displacement and transfer counts.

Instead, it found that the applicant’s representation had not been decided on its merits. In light of that omission, and while noting the Mohinder Singh Gill principle, the Tribunal considered it appropriate for the competent authority to address the grievances in the first instance.

It directed the applicant to submit a fresh, comprehensive representation within ten days of receiving the order, and directed the respondents to decide it independently by a reasoned and speaking order, after giving the applicant a personal hearing, within thirty days of receiving the representation. The decision must be made under the applicable KVS Transfer Policy and relevant provisions, uninfluenced by the Tribunal’s observations. There was no order as to costs.