Subhedar Ramji Ambedkar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 3020 Bom
Judgement Date : 9 June, 2017

Bombay High Court
Subhedar Ramji Ambedkar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 9 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
                                                                             wp6647.13.odt

                                               1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                               WRIT PETITION NO.6647/2013

     PETITIONER :              Subhedar Ramji Ambedkar Education 
                               Society, through its Secretary, 
                               Lokeshwar Daduramji Sawai, aged 43 years, 
                               Office at Master Colony, Savangi (Meghe)
                               Road, Wardha, Distt. Wardha. 

                                                  ...VERSUS...

     RESPONDENTS :    1.  The State of Maharashtra through its 
                            Secretary Department of Social Welfare, 
                            Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 

                               2.  The Commissioner of Social Welfare, 
                                     State of Maharashtra, Central Building, 
                                     Pune - 1. 

                               3.  The Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, 
                                    Yeotmal. 

                               4.  The Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, 
                                    Wardha. 

                               5.  The Divisional Commissioner, Social Welfare, 
                                    Nagpur Division, Nagpur. 

                               6.  The Divisional Commissioner, Social Welfare, 
                                    Amravati Division, Amravati. 

                               7.  Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur 
                                    University, Nagpur Through its Registrar, 
                                    Civil Lines, Nagpur. 

                               8.  Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University, 
                                    Amravati through its Registrar, University 
                                    Campus, Amravati. 

                                   (Amended as per Hon'ble Court's order 
                                    dt. 09.07.2014)

::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2017                           ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2017 00:05:10 :::
                                                                                         wp6647.13.odt

                                                      2

     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner 
                       Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 6
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                    CORAM  :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                                      ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATE : 09.06.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Commissioner of Social Welfare disapproving the action on the part of the petitioner of transferring the teachers from one Social Welfare College to the other, both run by the petitioner - Education Society.

Admittedly, the petitioner is a minority institution and runs two Social Welfare Colleges, one at Wardha and the other at Yavatmal. The petitioner effected the transfer of three teachers from the College at Wardha to the college at Yavatmal and two teachers were transferred from Yavatmal to Wardha. After the transfer was effected by the petitioner on 3.6.2013, the transferred teachers joined at the respective places to which they were transferred. Though the teachers did not have any grievance about their transfers, the Commissioner of Social Welfare issued the impugned orders directing the petitioner to cancel their transfer orders and to retain the teachers on their original places of postings. The action on the part of the Commissioner of Social Welfare is ::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2017 00:05:10 ::: wp6647.13.odt 3 impugned in the instant petition.

In the circumstances of the case, we find that the Commissioner of Social Welfare could not have directed the petitioner to cancel the transfer orders of these employees. Admittedly, the petitioner has gained minority status and the Commissioner of Social Welfare could not have insisted for seeking his approval before transferring the teachers from one Social Welfare College to the other, specially when the teachers did not have any grievance about their transfer and joined at the places to which they were transferred immediately after the transfer was effected in June, 2013. For more than four years, the teachers have been working in the Colleges to which they were transferred. This Court had stayed the order of the Commissioner of Social Welfare while admitting the writ petition and hence, the teachers are working at Yavatmal and Wardha in pursuance of the transfer orders effected by the petitioner on 3.6.2013. Since the petitioner is a minority institution the objection pertaining to the reservation policy, could not have been raised. Since the reservation policy is not applicable to the minority institutions, the Commissioner of Social Welfare was not justified in directing the petitioner to cancel the transfers of the teachers on the said ground. It would be worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 49 in this regard. In any case, since the teachers are working at the ::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2017 00:05:10 ::: wp6647.13.odt 4 places to which they were transferred for more than four years, it would not be proper to consider whether the transfer of the teachers could have been effected by the petitioner.

In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                    JUDGE                                                                JUDGE




     Wadkar




::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2017                                  ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2017 00:05:10 :::