IMPORTANT POINT
Transfers in private educational institutions are governed by private law, and judicial review is limited to matters involving public law elements.

ORDER :

(Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.) :

The 5th respondent vide proceedings dated 22.09.2023 transferred the petitioner, from Dr.N.T.T.P.S. DAV Public School, Ibrahimpatnam to DAV High School, Nellore, on the existing pay scale on the administrative ground observing that the Petitioner is entitled for TA, DA as per norms. The said proceedings have been assailed before this Court on the ground that the transfer is not under normal order, or it was made for administrative exigencies and transfer order was created and the power of transfer in the instant case was adopted as an alternative for punishment and which transfer cannot be inflicted without going through the process as prescribed under the law and in order to substantiate the said contention referred the internal proceedings of the 4th respondent which was addressed to the Assistant Regional Officer, DAV Institutions, in the said proceedings, it is observed that the petitioner has manipulated the attendance of the child in the Dr. NTTPS DAV School records and caused a lot of confusion and criticism from the parent community. Consequently, LMC of Dr. NTTPS has strongly felt that, disciplinary action should be taken against Sri V. Ramakoteswara Rao, PET, who is the petitioner herein. Therefore, the Chief Engineer (O&M), NTTPS, has requested the DAV College Managing Committee, New Delhi, to transfer the petitioner to any of the APGENCO DAV Schools on mutual basis, on disciplinary grounds.

2. The respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are appeared through their counsels, voiced that it was only in the interest of the administration, that too, because of various reports levelled against the petitioner that this transfer had been made in consultation with the respondent No.4 and 5. Moreover, administrative convenience and necessity should be given prime consideration in such transfers and the petitioner has been found most undesirable character in order to enforce and maintain discipline, the transfer had been affected for administration purposes and the institution has received complaint on 30.01.2023, the President/DAV Parent-Teacher Association/Dr. NTTPS has brought to the notice of the Chief Engineer (Operation and Maintenance) Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, Ibrahimpatnam, that some unethical, immoral practices done by the petitioner in DAV Sports meet 2022-23 by giving admissions with back date to outside students, who got prizes in sports meet. In that regard, the affected children’s parents had given complaint to the higher DAV officials, but DAV management not reacted appropriately and not taken any action. Many parents are treating this matter seriously and trying to escalate the issue to the DEO. Therefore, requested to take action immediately for not causing further damage to the reputation of the school and also contended that at the request of the APGENCO, the respondent No.5 had entered into an agreement with DAV CMC Society and they are not the sanctioning authority for registration of the school under the Education Act and they have established the school at the request of the APGENCO, represented by its Managing Director, and the said school is not an aided school and it is purely a private body discharging without any public duty or positive obligation of public nature and denied the contentions raised by the petitioner that the petitioner was transferred as an alternative for punishment, which punishment cannot be implemented without going into the process as prescribed under law and the transfer was not affected as a punishment without resorting to the disciplinary action and the proceedings relied by the petitioner are internal proceedings between the respondents and mainly contended that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

3. Heard Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3 and Sri P. Ravikanth, learned counsel for Respondent N