Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
R. K. Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Nidhi Pandey – Respondent
CONT.CAS(C) 1257 of 2022 & & CM APPL. 5943 of 2023
Decided On : 24-05-2023
Contempt - Request Transfer - Rule 16(h) of the KVS Transfer Guidelines - 2021 - The court discussed the compliance with the directions issued by the Division Bench, the suspension of the Annual Transfer Process, and the subsequent judgments affecting the Petitioner's request for transfer. Key legal provisions such as Rule 16(h) of the KVS Transfer Guidelines and the principles of contempt jurisdiction were considered in reaching the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a Trained Graduate Teacher, sought a transfer to a different Kendriya Vidyalaya (KV) on spouse ground. The Respondent's non-communication of the decision led to a contempt petition. The Respondent cited the suspension of the Annual Transfer Process and subsequent judgments affecting the transfer request. The Petitioner challenged the rejection of the transfer application and sought to impugn the order on merits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the directions issued by the Division Bench had been complied with by the Respondent. It noted the suspension of the Annual Transfer Process and the subsequent judgments affecting the transfer request. The court concluded that there was no violation or disobedience of the judgment, and thus, the contempt petition could not be maintained. The petition and related application were dismissed.
Issues: Compliance with the directions of the Division Bench, suspension of the Annual Transfer Process, rejection of the transfer application, and alleged contempt by the Respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the directions issued by the Division Bench had been complied with, and there was no violation or disobedience of the judgment. It emphasized the principles of contempt jurisdiction and the standard of proof required in such proceedings.
Final Decision: The present petition alleging contempt was dismissed, and the related application was also dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. The present petition has been filed making a grievance that the Respondent has not complied with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 11.10.2022 passed in W.P.(C) 14394/2022, whereby this Court directed the Respondent to consider and decide the Petitioner's representation for a `Request Transfer' within a period of four (4) weeks. The operative directions therein read as under:
"7. Accordingly, petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to make an application under the Request Transfer Policy, particularly Rule, 16(h) of the KVS Transfer Guidelines.
8. On an application being made. Respondents are directed to consider the same in accordance with law within a maximum period of four weeks from the receipt of the application.
9. It is clarified that at the time of consideration of the application. Respondents shall not be influenced by anything stated in any of the earlier orders or the orders of the Tribunal on merit and the application shall be considered on its merits keeping in view of the Request Transfer Policy.
10. Petition and the application filed herewith are accordingly disposed of in above terms."
2. The Petitioner is a Trained Graduate Teacher (English) working under the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan (`KVS') at Kendriya Vidyalaya (KV) Pali and he has been seeking a transfer to one of the KVs at Jaipur.
3. It is stated in this petition that the Petitioner had applied for a `Request Transfer' under Rule 16 (b) (iii) of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan Transfer Guidelines, 2021 (`Transfer Guidelines, 2021') vide application dated 14.10.2022 on `spouse ground'; however, since he did not receive any decision on the said representation within four (4) weeks, which expired on 08.11.2022, he filed the present contempt petition on 16.11.2022 aggrieved by the non-communication of the decision.
4. This petition was first listed before this Court on 21.11.2022. The Respondent who appeared on advance service apprised the Court that a decision has already been taken vide Memorandum dated 17.11.2022 and the Petitioner's application dated 14.10.2022 has been disposed of. The Respondent was directed to file its compliance affidavit and the matter was listed for hearing on 02.12.2022.
5. The Respondent in its Memorandum dated 17.11.2022 while disposing of the Petitioner's application dated 14.10.2022; recorded that paragraph 16 (b) (iii) of the Transfer Guidelines, 2021 had been kept in abeyance vide notice dated 12.09.2022. It was stated that the Annual Transfer Process of KVS has been suspended for the current academic year 2022-23 and only administrative transfers are being affected for the purpose of re-distribution and rationalisation of the teaching staff. It was stated that currently it is not feasible to transfer the Petitioner to any of the KV at Jaipur on `spouse ground'.
6. This Court vide order dated 02.12.2022, after perusing the Memorandum dated 17.11.2022 opined that it was a non-speaking order and directed the Respondent to pass a reasoned order on the Petitioner's representation dated 14.10.2022.
7. The Respondent in deference to this Court's order dated 02.12.2022 issued a Memorandum dated 09.12.2022, wherein reference was made to a subsequent judgment dated 04.11.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 15241/2022, wherein the Division Bench has taken note of the Notice dated 12.09.2022, issued by KVS suspending the Annual Transfer Process for the academic session of 2022-23. The Respondent relied upon the said judgment to state that the Division Bench had duly taken note of the suspension of the Transfer Guidelines 2021 and therefore, reiterated that the Petitioner's request for transfer on the `spouse ground' is presently suspended and cannot be considered.
8. Pertinently, in the judgment dated 04.11.2022, the Division Bench had granted liberty to the Petitioner therein that he can apply for a transfer a
Compliance with court directions, suspension of transfer process, and principles of contempt jurisdiction.
Contempt jurisdiction cannot alter original orders; compliance with amended transfer rules is mandatory for single teachers.
Transfer orders are part of service conditions and not subject to judicial review unless malafide or against service rules.
Contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to modify or review previous judgments; it is limited to determining willful non-compliance with original orders.
Limited interference with administrative transfers is permitted unless vitiated by mala fides or legal violations.
Contempt jurisdiction cannot modify or review original orders; it focuses solely on compliance with those orders.
Contempt jurisdiction cannot modify original orders; it is limited to assessing willful non-compliance.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
