NEELAPU PURUSHOTTAMA RAO (M) , vs NAVODYA VIDYALAYA SANGHATHAN (M) ,

OA No.386/2021 Page 1 of 5 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH OA/021/00386/2021 HYDERABAD, this the 10th day of June, 2021 Hon’ble Mr.

Ashish Kalia, Judl.

Member Hon’ble Mr.

B.V.

Sudhakar, Admn.

Member Neelapu Purushottama Rao S/o Late Rajayya, Aged 51 years, Working as Office Superintendent, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Panchawati Village, Rangat Taluk – 744 205, North & Middle AndamanDistrict, (A & N Islands). ...Applicant (By Advocate : Mr.

T.

P.

Acharya) Vs.

1.Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi, (Department of School Education and Literacy), Government of India, A-28, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110 048, Rep. by its Chairman.

2.

The Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi, B-15, Institutional Area, Sector-62, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P-201 309.

3.The Joint Commissioner (Pers. & Admn.), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi, B-15, Institutional Area, Sector-62, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P-201 309.

4.The Deputy Commissioner (Pers), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi, B-15, Institutional Area, Sector-62, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P-201 309.

5.The Deputy Commissioner (HR), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi, Gopannapalli Village, Nallagandla Road, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State, Hyderabad - 500 046.

6.

The Assistant Commissioner (HR), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi, Gopannapalli Village, Nallagandla Road, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State, Hyderabad - 500 046.

OA No.386/2021 Page 2 of 5 7.

The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Panchawati Village, Rangat Taluk – 744 205, North & Middle Andaman District, (A & N Islands).

8.

The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mettakur Village, Via Kakinada, Yanam, Union Territory - 533 464.

9.

Sri Ramachandrudu Kalavapudi, Working as Office Superintendent, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Village : Korwar, Kalaburagi-II, Kalaburagi District, Karnataka-585 312. ....Respondents (By Advocate : Mr.N.Srinatha Rao, SC for Rlys) --- OA No.386/2021 Page 3 of 5 ORAL ORDER (As per Hon’ble Mr. on’ble Mr.Ashish Kalia, Judicial Member) Through Video Conferencing: 2.

Heard Sri T.P.

Acharya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.

Srinatha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

3.

The applicant is working as an Office Superintendent in the respondent’s organization at Andaman & Nicobar Islands, which is a very hard station.

The respondents have called for options from employees for effecting annual transfers for the year 2020-21.

The applicant applied for Yanam and accordingly the respondents have issued a proposed transfer list on 03.05.2021, showing the applicant as posted at Yanam and the Respondent No.9 at Visakhapatnam.

Later, the respondents revised the proposed transfer list on 01.06.2021, posting the applicant at Visakhapatnam and the Respondent No.9 at Yanam.

The applicant claims that since he has worked in a very hard station, he has to be given choice posting.

However, the respondents have changed the order without intimating the reasons for doing so.

The applicant claims that the Respondent No.9 has been favoured in issuing the transfer order.

4.

Sri N.

Srinatha Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the change in the proposed transfer order was due to the reason that the applicant is alleged to be involved in a fraud.

He, however, submits that the final transfer list has not yet been OA No.386/2021 Page 4 of 5 released and up to 30.06.2021, no transfer order would be issued.

He has also submitted that the order dated 6.5.2021 issued by the 5th respondent stating that no employee shall represent against any transfer order has been superseded and an opportunity would be given to the concerned employees to represent against any transfer order.

Therefore, he submitted that at this juncture of time, no interim order needs to be passed.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a representation has been submitted by the applicant on 02.06.2021 to the respondents. spondents.

The said representation has not yet been disposed of till date.

In view of the above, the respondents shall dispose of the representation of the applicant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, by issuing a reasoned and speaking order.

The applicant is given liberty to revert to this Tribunal in case he is aggrieved with the disposal of his representation, within one week.

Till the disposal of representation and the one week period granted to the applicant to approach the Tribunal, the respondents shall not post anyone at Yanam in the post of Office Superintendent.

7.

With the above direction, the O.A. is disposed of at the admission stage.

No order as to costs. (B.V.SUDHAKAR) (ASHISH KALIA) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER /pv/ OA No.386/2021 Page 5 of 5