ORDER
Veerabhadraiah, J.
1. The petitioner being aggrieved of the judgment passed in M.A (EAT) No. 38/2000, by the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 6.11.2000, dismissing the appeal has come up with this revision.
2. The brief facts are as follows:
The petitioner Shri S.G. Krishnamurthy was appointed on 24.7.1990 as a Physical Education Instructor in the Management of vokkaligara Sangha and posted to work in the Junior College. Later on, he was transferred to the High School in the place of respondent No. 2. It is in so far as the transfer is concerned, the petitioner has questioned the said order before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, in M.A. (EAT) No. 38/2000. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that it does not amount to reduction in rank, secondly no appeal lies against the order of transfer. It is this order which is now questioned by the petitioner in the present revision.
3. The learned Counsel Shri K. Sridhar for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is senior to respondent No. 2 and was working as a physical Education Instructor in the College whereas he has been transferred to work in the High School. This amounts to reduction in rank. Therefore contended that an appeal shall lie under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act as there is violation of the provisions of Section 92 of the Act. Therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order as well as the transfer order effected by the management and re-post him to junior College in which he was earlier working as a Physical Education Instructor.
4. The learned Counsel Shri G. Gangireddy for respondent No. 1 contended that there is no reduction in rank of the petitioner so also there is no change in emoluments. The post now to which the petitioner has been transferred is the one and the same post from which he was transferred and it does not make any difference in so far as the nature of job between college and High School and also contended that an appeal under Section 94 is not maintainable as it does not amount to dismissal or removal as defined under Section 92 of the Act. The only remedy that is available to the petitioner is under Section 131 of the Act to prefer revision to the State Government. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the revision.
5. In the light of the submissions, the short questions that arise for consideration,
“Whether the appeal under Section 94 of the Act is maintainable in the case of transfers to the same cadre from College to High School or the remedy to the petitioner is under Section 131 of the Act to approach the Government by way of preferring a revision?”
6. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner S.G. Krishnamurthy was appointed as a physical Education Instructor in the Junior College of the Management of the Vokkaligara Sangha, by an order dated 24.7.1990. Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 Jagadish also came to be appointed as a Physical Education Instructor in the High School during the year 1995. The management, in turn, transferred the petitioner from Junior College to the High School vice-versa the said Jagadish from High School to the Junior College. From the appointment order it clearly establishes the fact that the petitioner Krishnamurthy and respondent No. 2 Jagadish were appointed to work as Physical Education Instructors and that there is no change in the emoluments which they are getting from the Management i.e., from their respective Institutions at present. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is a senior to that of respondent No. 2 Jagadish. Now the question whether the transfer does amount to reduction in rank has to be considered. Admittedly, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have been working as Physical Education Instructors and their emoluments are one and the same. Under such circumstances, transfer of the petitioner from College to High School and viseversa transfer of Jagadish from High School to College as Physical Education Instructor cannot be said that it amounts to reduction in rank. It is only in case the seniority were to be over looked, then it amounts to reduction in rank. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is senior to that of respondent No. 2 Jagadish. Therefore, when the seniority is maintained, the question of reduction in rank does not arise.
7. It is well settled principles that always transfer is incidental to the services. Therefore, as a matter of right a person cannot claim that he has been victimized or has been reduced in rank from the post in which he was working. Section 94 of the Act enables an employee of the Private Educational Institutions to prefer an appeal in the case of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. In the present case, none of the ingredients are attracted to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal. Section 131 of the act provides for revision in such other cases not falling under dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. Therefore, it is clear that the transfer being incidental to the services, the same does not amount to reduction in rank as there is no change in service conditions or in the emoluments of the petitioner. Therefore, in my opinion, the appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal itself is not maintainable. Therefore, the impugned order dismissing the appeal does not call for interference. However, at this stage, the learned Counsel Shri G. Gangireddy made a fair submission that the seniority will be safeguarded in all other aspects. The said submission is hereby recorded.
8. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.