JUDGMENT I. MAHANTY, J. — Sri Pramod Kumar Behera, the Physical Education Teacher (P.E.T.) at Kendriya Vidyalaya No.4, Bhubanes¬war has sought to challenge the order dated 28.5.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.211 of 2008 dismissing his challenge to an order of transfer transferring him from Bhubaneswar to Jharsuguda. 2. Sri Jatindra Mohan Mohanty, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been transferred from Dhanbad to Paradeep in the year 1998 and thereafter, he was transferred to Koraput in the year 2000. He submitted that the petitioner served at Koraput (defined as “Hard Station” under the New Transfer Guidelines of Kendriya Vidyalaya) until 30.5.2005. Thereafter, he was transferred to Bhubaneswar. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that while he has been serving at Bhubaneswar, he was served with the impugned order of transfer dated 15.5.2008 under Annexure-4 transferring the petitioner to Jharsuguda under the garb of “relocation”. He further pleaded that the petitioner had been informed by the authorities, that opposite party No.2-Joint Com¬missioner (Administration) had vide his letter dated 7.5.2008 directed that the Physical Education Teachers should be made available to Kendriya Vidyalayas having +2 classes and purported¬ly, since the school where the petitioner was serving at Bhuba¬neswar, i.e., Kendriya Vidyalaya No.4, had classes upto Class-X only, the petitioner has been transferred/relocated to Jharsugu¬da. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the peti¬tioner submitted that in terms of the “Transfer Guidelines”, the impugned transfer is violative of the “New Transfer Guidelines” (amended till 15.11.2007) of Kendriya Vidyalaya under Annexure-1. Learned counsel alleges that the transfer/relocation of the petitioner has not been done on the basis of any recommendation made by the Regional Transfer Committee (RTC) and, therefore, is violative of Clause-3 (1) (2) which stipulates that for intra regional transfers, power is vested in the Asst. Commissioner but the said Asst. Commissioner, authority is to base its orders on the recommendation of the Regional Transfer Committee. Learned counsel asserted that no such Committee was ever form nor does any recommendation exist from such a committee to support the order of transfer of the petitioner. 5. It was further submitted that the petitioner was enti¬tled to complete at least one term at Bhubaneswar since he had served for five years at a “Hard Station”, i.e., Koraput. Learned counsel asserted that no such Committee was ever form nor does any recommendation exist from such a committee to support the order of transfer of the petitioner. 5. It was further submitted that the petitioner was enti¬tled to complete at least one term at Bhubaneswar since he had served for five years at a “Hard Station”, i.e., Koraput. The next plea of the petitioner was that even after under Clause-7 of the Transfer Guidelines, i.e., “Administrative Transfers to Eliminate Staff Surplus”, it is required that “Station Seniority” should have been looked into prior to effecting transfers/reloca¬tion. In this respect the petitioner placed reliance upon Annex¬ure-9 which is the seniority list of teachers serving at Bhuba¬neswar Station and in terms of that, learned counsel pointed out that there are at least four other P.E.Ts. serving at Bhubaneswar who had served for a longer period than the petitioner and, therefore, Station Seniority should have been taken into consid¬eration for transferring/relocating any person. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal misconstrued the guidelines of the Kendriya Vidyalaya but took into consideration the other P.E.Ts at Bhubaneswar station who were serving in +2 schools, whereas the school where the petitioner was serving did not have any +2 course. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in law by not construing the transfer guidelines in its proper prospective and did not take into account the “Station Seniority” as mandated by the transfer rules. Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order of transfer under Annexure-4 ought to be quashed along with the impugned order dismissing the petitioner’s application by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28th May, 2008 passed in Original Application No.211 of 2008 under Annexure-7 to the writ application. 7. Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan submitted that the Sanghathan took a decision to place Physical Education Teacher (PET) in their institutions which are teaching +2 classes. Accordingly, since Kendriya Vidyalaya No.4, Bhubaneswar where the petitioner was serving as Physical Education Teacher had classes only upto Class-X, the petitioner was not transferred but “relocated” at Jharsuguda. To support this contention, Sri Mohanty placed reli¬ance upon Clause-8(vi) and Clause-17.2 of the New Transfer Guide¬lines of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. Accordingly, since Kendriya Vidyalaya No.4, Bhubaneswar where the petitioner was serving as Physical Education Teacher had classes only upto Class-X, the petitioner was not transferred but “relocated” at Jharsuguda. To support this contention, Sri Mohanty placed reli¬ance upon Clause-8(vi) and Clause-17.2 of the New Transfer Guide¬lines of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. Placing reliance on the aforesaid clauses of the Transfer Guidelines, Mr.Mohanty submitted that it was possible to effect administrative transfer on the ground of “administrative exigency” and the Kendriya Vidyalayas had the right to transfer any teacher in any place at any time due to such "administrative exigency" and accordingly, the order of re-location of the petitioner from Kendriya Vidyalaya No.4, Bhubaneswar to Kendriya Vidyalaya at Jharsuguda, cannot be questioned on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Sri Mohanty further contended that since the present re-location is not a transfer, no question of constituting the Regional Transfer Committee (RTC) arose. Similarly, Mr. Mohanty submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was not a “surplus staff” and, therefore, the question of transferring persons based on “Station Seniority” as required under Clause-7.1 (ii), does not arise and, therefore, he sought to justify the im¬pugned order of transfer as well as the order of Tribunal reject¬ing the petitioner’s Original Application. 8. In consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties as noted hereinabove, we find that the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan annually sanction posts both in teaching and non-teaching staff for every academic ses¬sion. We find from Annexure-5 that Kendriya Vidyalaya No.4, Bhubaneswar (the school in which the petitioner is serving as P.E.T.) was granted sanction for the post of P.E.T. for the ses¬sion 2008-09. Therefore, the post in which the petitioner is serving, has been duly sanctioned by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. We further find that it is the admitted case of the party that the petitioner had served at a Hard Station, namely, Koraput for a period of five years prior to his posting at Ken¬driya Vidyalaya, Bhubaneswar and he joined there on transfer from Koraput only in June, 2005. 9. While learned counsel appearing for the Sangathan argued that the petitioner in the impugned order was “re-located” and not transferred yet, he seeks to place reliance upon two clauses of the Transfer Guidelines, namely, Clause-8(vi) and Clause-17.2 in order to try and justify the so-called order of re-location. 9. While learned counsel appearing for the Sangathan argued that the petitioner in the impugned order was “re-located” and not transferred yet, he seeks to place reliance upon two clauses of the Transfer Guidelines, namely, Clause-8(vi) and Clause-17.2 in order to try and justify the so-called order of re-location. From this, it is clear that the employer seeks to justify the so-called re-location of the petitioner by relying upon powers vested in it under the New Transfer Guidelines it¬self. Therefore, it is clear that merely by terming the shifting of the petitioner from Bhubaneswar to Jharsuguda as “re-location”, the said shifting is nothing else other than “trans¬fer” and such transfers are obviously to be effected strictly in consonance with the New Transfer Guidelines appended as Annexure-1 to the writ application. 10. Therefore, we are of the considered view that use of the word “re-location” cannot change the fact that the petitioner in effect was “transferred” from Bhubaneswar to Jharsuguda and the New Transfer Guidelines most definitely will govern such transfer. The “administrative exigencies”, pleaded by the Sanga¬than, i.e., shifting of P.E.Ts. from schools not having +2 class¬es to schools having +2 classes, is a policy clearly within the domain of the management. While exercising such transfer, the real effect on such a policy was to declare P.E.Ts in schools not having +2 classes as “surplus” and, therefore, consequently transferring “surplus P.E.Ts” to schools in which +2 courses was being taught. We are, there, in agreement with the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this transfer is to be governed by Clause-7 of the New Transfer Guidelines which is quoted hereinbelow: “7. ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSFERS TO ELIMINATE STAFF SURPLUS. 7.1 In the Kendriya Vidyalaya where teachers are in surplus, action will be taken to reduce such surplus to zero, in the following manner. (i) All teachers of relevant category working in Kendriya Vidya¬layas having a surplus in that category will be notified that teachers of that category in requisite numbers need to be trans¬ferred out to eliminate the surplus, and it will be ascertained whether any of them are willing to be transferred out to other KVs within the region having vacancies in relevant category. To the extent possible, surplus will be eliminated by transferring willing teachers, who respond to the above notice, to vacant posts within the Region. To the extent possible, surplus will be eliminated by transferring willing teachers, who respond to the above notice, to vacant posts within the Region. (ii) Since some surplus may remain after (i) above, person(s) in requisite numbers will also be identified at the station where each school having a surplus is located for effecting administrative transfer to the extent of such remaining surplus. This will be done on the basis of highest station seniority of teachers not belonging to the CDA category. (underlined for emphasis). Preferences of such teachers from among available vacancies in KVs of the Region will also be ascertained. Preference of such persons (Amended on 15.11.2007) under (i) above and those identi¬fied under (ii) above will be called at the time of calling for the details of surplus staff (Amended on 15.11.2007) by 10th January, and transfers will be effected, in that order, with due regard to their choice from amongst available vacancies, and as per the guidelines in paras 13 and 14, below, by 15th January. 7.2. In some cases there may be surplus staff in a particu¬lar category, in a region as a whole. To that extent, persons of that category will have to be transferred out of the region. Such persons will be those who can not be accommodated within the region by following the exercise spelt out in para 7.1 above. List of such persons, along with their preference for other regions, will be sent by the Assistant Commissioner to the Com¬missioner by 20th January, who will then transfer them to regions having net vacancies in that category, in the manner provided in paras 13 and 14, by 31st January. 7.3. Vacancies arising on account of superannuation upto 31st July of the year at stations from which teachers are transferred out on administrative grounds under paras 7.1(ii) and 7.2 above, shall be filled up by reposting of teachers who are so transferred out, in pursuance of the above paras. While doing so, priority would be given to teachers who are transferred out of the region, and wherever applicable, it will be specified in their initial transfer order itself that they will stand re-posted to their original station on superannuation of the person concerned.” 11. While doing so, priority would be given to teachers who are transferred out of the region, and wherever applicable, it will be specified in their initial transfer order itself that they will stand re-posted to their original station on superannuation of the person concerned.” 11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in so far as Bhubaneswar Station is concerned, the Seniority List is maintained of all teachers both teaching and non-teaching of all schools of Kendriya Vidyalaya located at the Bhubaneswar Station. A copy of the Station Seniority List of Bhubaneswar is appended as Annexure-9 to the writ application. In the said seniority list, it appears that while the petitioner P.K. Behera joined at Bhubaneswar on 9.6.2005, some other P.E.Ts, namely, S.K. Rout and S.M. Pattanaik, have been working at Bhuba¬neswar from 12.7.2004 and 25.6.2002 respectively. From the Sta¬tion Seniority List, it is clear that the petitioner is not the senior most P.E.T. at Bhubaneswar Station. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned order of transfer under Annexure-4 transferring the petitioner from Bhubaneswar to Jharsuguda, is violative of Clause-7.1(ii) of the New Transfer Guidelines of Kendriya Vidya¬laya Sangathan and, therefore, is quashed. We further direct that it is open for the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to act strictly in compliance of their transfer guidelines and to first ascertain “Station Seniority” prior to re-locating surplus staff, if re¬quired. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ application is allowed and order dated 28.5.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.211 of 2008 is quashed. L. MOHAPATRA, J. I agree. Application allowed.