KVS must reconsider the transfer representation afresh through a reasoned order under applicable policies.

The applicant, initially appointed as a Primary Teacher in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) on 27 November 2003 and subsequently appointed as TGT (Mathematics) on 11 September 2006, was transferred from K.V. No. 4 ONGC, Surat, to K.V. CISF RTC, Thakkolam, Chennai Region, by order dated 13 September 2022 on administrative grounds.

While posted at Thakkolam, he was promoted as PGT (Mathematics) through LDCE-2022 by order dated 9 October 2023 and retained at the same station.

He sought modification of his posting to a vacant post in the Ahmedabad Region, citing family responsibilities, the education of his daughters, and his father’s medical condition.

His representations were rejected, including by orders dated 16 February 2024 and 6 March 2025.

The applicant relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated 19 March 2024 in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. v. Neena Khatri, SLP (C) No. 24825/2023, concerning the September 2022 transfer exercise, and contended that his transfer ought to be reconsidered after obtaining his station preferences.

Pursuant to an earlier order in O.A. No. 2452/2024, he submitted a representation dated 4 February 2025 giving three preferred stations—Ahmedabad, Ankleshwar and Baroda.

The respondents opposed the application on the grounds that the applicant had no vested right to a particular station, that his posting followed vacancy, merit and administrative requirements, and that the Supreme Court’s directions did not apply to his present status as PGT appointed through LDCE-2022.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to modification of his posting at K.V. Thakkolam pursuant to his promotion as PGT (Mathematics) through LDCE-2022.

2. Whether the applicant’s transfer from K.V. No. 4 ONGC, Surat, to K.V. Thakkolam under the order dated 13 September 2022 was required to be reconsidered in light of the subsequent directions of the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 24825/2023 and the applicant’s three preferred stations.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle that an employee ordinarily has no enforceable right to insist upon posting at a particular station, and that transfer and posting are matters primarily within the employer’s administrative discretion, subject to applicable rules, policies, vacancies and non-arbitrariness.

The Tribunal also considered the Supreme Court’s directions dated 19 March 2024 in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. v. Neena Khatri, SLP (C) No. 24825/2023, and the Tribunal’s order dated 30 January 2025 in O.A. No. 2452/2024, requiring the applicant’s representation and three choices to be examined in accordance with the applicable KVS rules and policies.

The competent authority was required to pass an objective and reasoned order after examining vacancy position and whether the judicial directions applied to the applicant’s present status as PGT (Mathematics).

The Tribunal did not determine that the applicant had a right to Ahmedabad, Ankleshwar, Baroda, or any other particular station.

It noted, however, that the applicant had already furnished three choices pursuant to the earlier proceedings and that subsequent judicial developments, particularly the Supreme Court’s order dated 19 March 2024, directly affected his contention that the September 2022 transfer should be reconsidered.

Since the respondents’ decision had to address the applicability of those directions, the applicant’s three choices, the relevant KVS transfer policies, and the availability of vacancies, the Tribunal considered it appropriate for the competent authority to undertake that assessment in the first instance.

The Tribunal therefore refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the applicant’s requested posting and directed a fresh, objective and reasoned consideration.

The authority was directed to consider the Supreme Court’s order dated 19 March 2024, the Tribunal’s order dated 30 January 2025 in O.A. No. 2452/2024, the applicant’s three choices submitted on 4 February 2025, the applicable KVS rules and policies, the availability of vacancies, and the applicability of the judicial directions to his present status as PGT (Mathematics).

A reasoned and speaking order was to be passed within four weeks from receipt of the Tribunal’s order and communicated to the applicant thereafter.

The Tribunal clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the applicant’s entitlement to any particular station.

The pending M.A. was also disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.