Ms. Kalpna vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (HQ) & Ors.

Per Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

The applicant was working as a Primary Teacher (PRT) at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi under the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), an autonomous organisation under the Ministry of Education, Government of India. The KVS conducted a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion to the post of Head Mistress (HM) for the year 2022. The applicant appeared in the said examination and was declared successful, having secured her position in the main panel. Pursuant thereto, she was promoted to the post of Head Mistress vide order dated 14.09.2023 and was ranked 141st in the main panel. However, she was allotted a posting in Panna, Jabalpur Region, Madhya Pradesh.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was faced with exceptional and compelling circumstances which made it practically impossible for her to join at the place of posting. Her mother had been diagnosed with end-stage chronic renal failure in January 2023 and required regular maintenance haemodialysis at least twice a week, besides suffering from severe hypertension and Type-II diabetes. She was undergoing continuous treatment at Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini, Delhi. The applicant was the primary caregiver of her mother and was personally responsible for accompanying her to the twice-weekly dialysis sessions, managing her hospital admissions and discharges and providing necessary post-dialysis care and support. The applicant's father had already expired on 26.02.2015 and, since then, her mother had been dependent upon her. The applicant had no children and her husband was residing in Bengaluru on account of his employment. Thus, according to learned counsel, the applicant was the sole and primary caregiver of her seriously ill mother.

Learned counsel further submitted that, even before allocation of the promotional posting, the applicant had submitted a representation dated 11.07.2023 through proper channel requesting that, in view of her mother's serious medical condition, she may be considered for posting in the Delhi Region. After issuance of the promotion order dated 14.09.2023, the applicant, while conveying her willingness to accept the promotion, submitted another representation dated 15.09.2023 requesting modification of her place of posting from Jabalpur Region to Delhi Region on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. She specifically brought to the notice of the respondents that her mother required regular dialysis and that Delhi had the necessary specialised medical facilities for her treatment. Despite these representations, no modification of the place of posting was granted.

It was further submitted that the respondents extended the time for joining on several occasions, ultimately requiring the promotees to join their respective promotional posts by 07.03.2024, failing which the offer of promotion would stand withdrawn. The applicant repeatedly represented to the competent authorities through proper channel and by e-mail, explaining her circumstances and requesting that her case be considered sympathetically and that she be permitted to join as Head Mistress at a suitable station in Delhi. However, her request was not favourably considered. Consequently, vide memorandum dated 07.06.2024, the respondents withdrew the promotion of several candidates, including the applicant, on the ground of failure to join the promotional post within the stipulated period.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant's case acquired further significance because, subsequently, vide order dated 21.06.2024, the respondents revised the panel for the post of Head Mistress and the applicant's name was retained and her position was upgraded in the revised panel. According to learned counsel, this subsequent action demonstrated that the applicant continued to remain eligible and had not been treated as having lost her entitlement on account of any deficiency in merit or qualification. Yet, when candidates from the reserved/waiting panel were subsequently promoted and accommodated at different locations vide order dated 03.01.2025, the applicant was not considered, despite her inclusion in the revised panel. Learned counsel contended that the respondents had thus adopted an inconsistent and arbitrary approach towards the applicant.

It was also submitted that, independently of the promotional controversy, the applicant was transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi to Kendriya Vidyalaya, STPS, Suratgarh, Jaipur Region, Rajasthan, vide transfer order dated 26.06.2024. The applicant represented against the transfer and sought cancellation thereof, again relying upon her mother's serious medical condition and the need for her continued treatment in Delhi. The applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA No.2523/2024, whereupon, vide order dated 28.06.2024, the respondents were directed to consider her representation expeditiously and preferably within two weeks by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Learned counsel submitted that despite the said direction, the respondents did not take any effective decision within the stipulated period, compelling the applicant, in order to protect her employment, to ultimately join the transferred post at Suratgarh on 29.08.2024.

Learned counsel submitted that the applicant's circumstances continued to remain unchanged and she could not relocate her mother to Suratgarh or Panna, as neither place offered medical facilities comparable to those available in Delhi for her mother's regular dialysis and other specialised treatment. Consequently, the applicant had to remain on leave without pay for prolonged periods in order to attend to her mother's medical needs. It was submitted that the applicant had taken leave without pay from 30.08.2024 onwards during different periods, including the period from 30.08.2024 to 02.03.2025, 04.03.2025 to 27.04.2025 and 22.06.2025 to 31.10.2025, apart from the summer vacation period. According to learned counsel, this had caused the applicant substantial financial hardship, particularly as she had outstanding financial liabilities including a home loan, besides causing considerable mental and emotional distress.

Learned counsel emphasised that the applicant had not declined the promotion or refused to serve as Head Mistress. On the contrary, she had cleared the LDCE on merit and had consistently expressed her willingness to join the promotional post, subject only to a reasonable modification of the place of posting in view of the exceptional medical circumstances of her mother. It was argued that the respondents ought to have considered her representations in a humane, fair and objective manner instead of mechanically withdrawing her promotion merely because she could not join at the particular station allotted to her.

Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant had made repeated representations to the competent authorities, including the KVS authorities and the Ministry of Education, on various dates from July 2023 onwards, requesting a fair opportunity to join as Head Mistress at a suitable station. However, her representations were either not considered or were rejected on technical grounds. It was particularly contended that the communication dated 09.09.2024 refusing to forward her representation through proper channel was based upon an earlier order dated 15.01.2024, which had ceased to operate after the subsequent extension order dated 29.02.2024. The applicant was thus deprived of effective consideration of her grievance.

Learned counsel contended that the respondents' action was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The applicant had secured promotion through a competitive examination and had remained in the service for about ten years with an otherwise satisfactory record. Her inability to join at the allotted station was not deliberate or motivated, but arose from circumstances beyond her control relating to the serious and continuing illness of her sole surviving parent. The respondents, according to learned counsel, failed to distinguish between a case of wilful refusal to join and a case where an employee, while accepting the promotion, seeks only a modification of posting on genuine humanitarian grounds.

It was further argued that principles of natural justice required the respondents to consider the applicant's representations and afford her an effective opportunity of being heard before withdrawing a promotion which she had earned through merit. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay K. Nimje, (2017) 4 SCC 156, to contend that an order of promotion, once granted, could not be cancelled without affording the affected employee an opportunity of hearing, particularly where the circumstances warranted consideration of the employee's explanation.

Learned counsel also relied upon judicial decisions concerning transfer on humanitarian grounds, including the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in All India Union Bank Officers v. Union Bank of India dated 28.04.2025 and decisions of this Tribunal in Smt. Chitra Mukundan v. Union of India and Smt. Anjali Airi v. Union of India, to submit that administrative decisions concerning transfer and posting cannot be taken mechanically without considering genuine family, medical and humanitarian circumstances. It was contended that the respondents were required to exercise their discretion fairly and reasonably, particularly where the employee had produced cogent medical material concerning the condition of her dependent parent.

Learned counsel finally submitted that the subsequent promotion/accommodation of candidates from the reserved or waiting panel, while ignoring the applicant despite her retention in the revised panel dated 21.06.2024, further demonstrated arbitrariness and discrimination. The applicant was not seeking any relaxation in merit or qualification; she was only seeking a fair opportunity to join the post for which she had qualified, at a station where she could simultaneously discharge her unavoidable responsibility towards her seriously ill mother. It was therefore prayed that the impugned action of withdrawal of the applicant's promotion and the consequential denial of her claim for appointment as Head Mistress be set aside and the respondents be directed to reconsider her case for appointment/promotion as Head Mistress, with suitable modification of the place of posting, in accordance with law and on humanitarian grounds.

Counsel for the respondents has filed the counter affidavit and submitted that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) is an autonomous organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is fully financed by the Government of India through the Ministry of Education. The Applicant was working as a Primary Teacher and was selected for promotion to the post of Headmistress pursuant to the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE)-2022. Accordingly, she was issued an offer of promotion vide Memorandum dated 14.09.2023, whereby she was posted to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Panna, Madhya Pradesh, and was required to join the promotional post within the stipulated period.

It is submitted that the Applicant admittedly failed to join at the place of posting within the prescribed period. Although the terms of the offer specifically stipulated that representations for change of place of posting or extension of time to join would not be entertained, the Respondents, nevertheless, granted repeated opportunities to the Applicant. The joining period was initially extended up to 22.12.2023 vide communication dated 14.12.2023, thereafter up to 06.01.2024 vide communication dated 01.01.2024, and, as a final opportunity, up to 07.03.2024 vide communication dated 29.02.2024. Despite these three extensions and the lapse of more than five months from the original offer, the Applicant did not join the promotional post. Consequently, her offer of promotion was withdrawn vide Office Memorandum dated 07.06.2024, strictly in accordance with the terms of the offer and the applicable rules. The subsequent vacancies were filled from the reserve panel in accordance with the established procedure and availability of vacancies.

The allegation that the Applicant was denied an opportunity of hearing or that the withdrawal of promotion violated the principles of natural justice is wholly misconceived. The Applicant was not deprived of any opportunity; rather, she was repeatedly called upon to join and was granted three extensions beyond the original joining period. The withdrawal was the direct consequence of her own failure to comply with the conditions of the promotion offer. The Applicant cannot, after consciously declining to join the allotted place of posting, seek restoration of a promotion which had lapsed on account of her own non-compliance.

It is further submitted that the Applicant's contention that the Respondents ought to have changed her place of posting on compassionate or humanitarian grounds is untenable. The promotion offer expressly provided that requests for change of place of posting would not be entertained. The relevant provisions of the KVS Promotion Rules and the Education Code do not confer upon an employee any vested or enforceable right to demand posting at a particular place or near a particular station. Consideration of individual hardship, wherever permissible, remains subject to administrative feasibility, the applicable rules and service exigencies. The representations made by the Applicant were duly considered in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and there was no arbitrariness or discrimination in the decision taken by the Respondents.

The Applicant's further grievance regarding her transfer from Delhi to KV STPS, Suratgarh, is also without substance. The Applicant had been serving at Delhi Station since 14.07.2016 and had consequently remained at the station for more than seven years. Under the applicable KVS transfer policy, an employee who has completed the prescribed tenure and has the requisite displacement count is liable to be displaced in accordance with the prescribed criteria. The Applicant had a displacement count of 10 and was accordingly displaced during the annual transfer exercise of 2024. The transfer process is undertaken through the online transfer portal developed and maintained by the National Informatics Centre and is governed by the applicable transfer policy and objective criteria. The Applicant was displaced in favour of an employee who had completed tenure in the North-East Region and had a substantially higher transfer count. Thus, the transfer cannot be characterised as arbitrary, punitive or discriminatory.

It is also relevant that the Applicant had earlier approached this Hon'ble Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2523 of 2024 challenging her transfer order dated 25.06.2024. This Hon'ble Tribunal, vide order dated 28.06.2024, directed the Respondents to consider and dispose of her representations. In compliance thereof, the Respondents duly considered the representations and passed an appropriate order vide Office Memorandum dated 25.07.2024. Thus, the Applicant has already been afforded the relief of consideration of her representations in accordance with the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal.

The contention that candidates from the reserve panel were accommodated at comparatively convenient or nearby stations is also misconceived. The reserve panel candidates were allotted Kendriya Vidyalayas on the basis of vacancies available at the relevant time and in accordance with the applicable KVS procedure. There is no material to establish that the Applicant was discriminated against or that any candidate was deliberately favoured over her.

It is submitted that the Applicant's attempt to revive her lapsed promotion appears to be intended to secure retention at Delhi after she had declined to join the promotional post at Panna. The Applicant cannot be permitted to accept the benefits of promotion while simultaneously refusing to comply with the place of posting attached to such promotion. Promotion and posting are matters governed by the applicable rules and administrative requirements, and an employee has no vested right to insist that a promotional appointment be coupled with a posting of her choice. The withdrawal of the promotion was therefore a consequence of the Applicant's own decision not to join despite repeated opportunities and cannot now be used to challenge her subsequent displacement from Delhi.

The grounds raised in the Original Application are essentially a reiteration of the same allegations and do not disclose any violation of the applicable rules, principles of natural justice or constitutional guarantees. The Respondents have acted uniformly and fairly, having granted the Applicant the same opportunities and extensions as were available to the concerned candidates. The action taken was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory and was based upon objective administrative considerations. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate any vested right to alteration of her place of posting, extension of joining time beyond the opportunities already granted, or restoration of a promotion which was withdrawn after her failure to join.

In these circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that the withdrawal of the Applicant's promotion was lawful, reasonable and in accordance with the governing rules and the express terms of the promotion offer. Her subsequent transfer was also effected in accordance with the applicable KVS transfer policy and the objective criteria governing the annual transfer exercise. No case of violation of natural justice, discrimination, arbitrariness or infringement of any legal right has been made out. The Original Application is, therefore, devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.

The principal issue which arises for consideration is whether the applicant has made out a case for restoration of her promotion to the post of Head Mistress pursuant to LDCE-2022, notwithstanding her failure to join at the place of posting despite repeated opportunities granted by the respondents.

There is no dispute that the applicant was selected for promotion to the post of Head Mistress pursuant to LDCE-2022 and that an offer of promotion was issued to her vide memorandum dated 14.09.2023, with her posting at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Panna, Madhya Pradesh. It is equally undisputed that the applicant did not join at the allotted place of posting within the stipulated period. The record further shows that, notwithstanding the condition contained in the offer of promotion that a request for change of place of posting or extension of joining time would not ordinarily be entertained, the respondents extended the time for joining on three occasions, ultimately permitting the applicant to join up to 07.03.2024. The applicant admittedly did not join even within the extended period.

The applicant, however, has sought to explain her inability to join by placing reliance upon the serious medical condition of her mother, who, according to her, was suffering from end-stage chronic renal failure and required regular dialysis and continuing medical care at Delhi. It is also her case that she had repeatedly approached the respondents seeking a modification of her place of posting on humanitarian grounds and had consistently expressed her willingness to accept the promotion.

We have no reason to doubt that the applicant was faced with difficult personal circumstances and that the medical condition of her mother required her attention. Nevertheless, the question before us is not whether the circumstances of the applicant were genuine or deserving of sympathy, but whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant had acquired an enforceable right to insist upon modification of the place of posting attached to her promotion and, thereafter, to seek restoration of the promotion after not joining at the place allotted to her.

In our considered view, the answer has to be in the negative. Promotion to a particular post and posting upon such promotion are matters governed by the applicable service rules and administrative requirements. An employee selected for promotion cannot ordinarily claim, as a matter of right, a posting at a station of her choice. In the present case, the offer of promotion itself contained a clear stipulation regarding the place of posting and further stipulated that representations for change of place of posting would not be entertained. More importantly, the applicant was not called upon to join immediately without any further opportunity. She was granted three extensions and was ultimately permitted to join up to 07.03.2024. Despite the same, she did not join the promotional post.

The subsequent withdrawal of the offer of promotion, therefore, cannot be said to be wholly arbitrary or without any basis. The respondents were entitled to take into account the failure of the applicant to join the promotional post within the extended period, particularly when vacancies were required to be filled and the administration had to proceed further with the promotion process. The fact that the applicant had repeatedly represented on humanitarian grounds does not, by itself, confer upon her a legal right to have the place of posting altered contrary to the terms of the promotion order.

We are also unable to accept the contention that the withdrawal of the promotion, in the circumstances of the present case, necessarily amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice. The applicant had repeatedly placed her case before the competent authorities and had been granted repeated extensions of time. Her representations and the circumstances relied upon by her were thus within the knowledge of the respondents. The withdrawal was occasioned by her failure to join within the extended period and was not founded upon any misconduct, adverse finding or allegation affecting her character or service record. The decision, therefore, cannot be equated with an order of punishment requiring a prior disciplinary enquiry.

The applicant has also relied upon the subsequent revision of the panel and the fact that her name continued to find mention therein. In our view, such subsequent revision, by itself, cannot revive a promotion which had already been withdrawn on account of non-joining. Nor does inclusion in a revised panel confer an unconditional or indefeasible right to appointment where the candidate had failed to comply with the terms of the earlier promotion offer. Likewise, the fact that candidates from the reserve panel were subsequently accommodated does not establish discrimination in the absence of material demonstrating that the applicant was similarly situated in all relevant respects and that the reserve panel candidates were appointed contrary to the applicable procedure.

As regards the applicant's transfer from Delhi to KV STPS, Suratgarh, we find that the said issue has its own factual and administrative context. The applicant had remained posted at Delhi Station since 14.07.2016 and had, according to the respondents, acquired the displacement count prescribed under the applicable transfer policy. The respondents have stated that the transfer was effected through the online transfer process and on the basis of the applicable objective criteria. The applicant had also earlier challenged the transfer by filing O.A. No. 2523 of 2024, and this Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider her representation. The respondents thereafter disposed of the representation vide memorandum dated 25.07.2024. In the absence of sufficient material to establish that the transfer was actuated by mala fides, was punitive in character or was contrary to the applicable transfer policy, we find no ground to interfere with the transfer merely on the basis of the applicant's personal circumstances.

We are, however, conscious of the fact that the applicant has been in service as a Primary Teacher and that the dispute before us essentially arose out of her inability to join the promotional post at the place allotted to her. The withdrawal of the promotion cannot, in our considered view, be permitted to have any unintended or disproportionate consequence upon her continuing service in the cadre of Primary Teacher. The applicant's failure to join the promotional post, in the peculiar facts of the case, was not on account of any misconduct, lack of qualification, adverse service record or fraudulent conduct. Her case was founded upon circumstances relating to the medical condition of her mother, which she had brought to the notice of the respondents from an early stage.

It is therefore considered appropriate, while declining the principal relief sought by the applicant for restoration of promotion as Head Mistress, to clarify that the withdrawal of the offer of promotion shall not be construed as termination or cessation of the applicant's service under the respondents. The applicant shall be permitted to continue in service in the cadre/post of Primary Teacher, subject, of course, to the applicable service rules and to the normal incidents of service, including transfer and posting in accordance with the applicable KVS policy. Such continuation shall not confer upon her any right to restoration of the promotion pursuant to LDCE-2022 or to a particular place of posting.

We also make it clear that the applicant's past service as Primary Teacher shall not be treated as interrupted merely by reason of the withdrawal of the offer of promotion. Her service benefits shall be regulated in accordance with the applicable rules. If any period during which she remained absent or on leave without pay is otherwise required to be regularised under the applicable rules, the competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the dismissal of the present Original Application.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no sufficient ground to quash the memorandum dated 07.06.2024 whereby the applicant's offer of promotion to the post of Head Mistress was withdrawn. The applicant has failed to establish any vested right either to restoration of the said promotion or to modification of the place of posting attached thereto. The challenge to the withdrawal of promotion and the consequential reliefs sought by the applicant are, therefore, liable to be rejected.

However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly having regard to the fact that the applicant was a serving Primary Teacher and that the withdrawal of the promotional offer was occasioned by her failure to join the promotional post and not by any misconduct or deficiency in qualification, it is directed that the withdrawal of the promotion shall not result in termination or cessation of her service as Primary Teacher. The respondents shall permit the applicant to continue in the post/cadre of Primary Teacher, subject to the applicable rules and the normal requirements of service. Her posting shall, however, remain subject to the applicable KVS transfer policy, and no right to a posting at Delhi or at any particular station shall be deemed to arise from this order.

The Original Application is accordingly dismissed in the above terms. Pending MA(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.