Review Application No. 02 of 2013 with Misc. Application No. 107 of 2014 In Original Application No. 226 of 2012. Case: Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan through its Commissioner, The Joint Commissioner (Admn.) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, The Dy. Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1 Vs Ramanjeet Johar. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Review Application No. 02 of 2013 with Misc. Application No. 107 of 2014 In Original Application No. 226 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Joy Mathew, Advocate on behalf of Ms. P.B. Sheth and For Respondents: Mr. A.L. Sharma, Advocate |
| Judges | U. Sarathchandran, Member (J) |
| Issue | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 22(3)(f); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLVII Rule 1, Section 114 |
| Judgement Date | April 28, 2014 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
U. Sarathchandran, Member (J), (Ahmedabad Bench)
-
M.A. No. 107 of 2014 for condonation of delay is allowed for the reasons stated therein and in the interest of justice.
-
This R.A. has been filed by the review applicants (respondents in O.A. No. 226 of 2012) seeking review of the order passed by this Tribunal on 24-9-2012.
-
The O.A. was filed challenging order dated 14-5-2012 passed by respondent no. 1 in O.A. rejecting the applicant's representation with respect to counting of displacement counts with reference to the new transfer guidelines of employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan w.e.f. 14-3-2006. Applicant in the O.A. had relied on the order of Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal. The respondents in the O.A. (applicants in R.A.) contended that the aforesaid order of the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal has been challenged in the Hon'ble Lucknow High Court. However, this Tribunal vide the order sought to be reviewed in this R.A. held that since the Hon'ble High Court at Lucknow has not stayed the operation of the order of the Tribunal, the latter order remains operative and that the order impugned in the O.A. cannot be legally sustained in the light of the order of Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal. Accordingly the order impugned in O.A. was quashed and set aside by this Tribunal.
-
The crux of the contentions of the applicant in the O.A. was that the amendment introduced in the transfer guidelines can be operative only prospectively and not retrospectively as what has been done by way of the impugned order in the O.A. Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal in an identical case held that the amendment in the transfer guidelines can be operative only prospectively.
-
In the review application on hand, it is contended by the respondents in the O.A. that there was an order by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal on 27-8-2012 (common order in O.A. Nos. 2030, 2032, 2033, 2300, 2566 and 2568 of 2012) wherein it was held that the procedure adopted by the respondents in displacing the teacher to decide the representation made in terms of the clause 9 of the transfer policy is fair and rational. According to the review applicants, they could not point out the aforesaid order of the Principal Bench at the time of hearing of the O.A. Therefore the review applicants pray for reviewing the order passed by this Tribunal on 24-9-2012 in the light of the pendency of the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court at Lucknow as well as in view of the order...
To continue reading
Request your trial