Bombay High Court
Sau. Damyanti Rajanand Vaidya vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 1 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp6522.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6522/2016
PETITIONER: Sau. Damyanti Rajanand Vaidya
aged about 49 years, Occu. Service,
C/o Zilla Parishad Upper Primary School, Dhakni,
Tah. and District Gondia.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, though its
Secretary, School Education and
Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State,
Pune.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia.
4. Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,
Gondia, Distt. Gondia.
5. Sau. Asha Madhav Kale,
aged : Major, Occ. Service as Head Master,
Zilla Parishad School Dhakni, Panchayat
Samiti Gondia, District Gondia.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.S. Kshirsagar, Advocate for petitioner
Ms Tajwar Khan, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
Shri A.Y. Kapgate, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 01.12.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission, as the notice for final disposal was issued
wp6522.16.odt
against the respondents and the concerned respondents against whom the
relief is sought, are duly served.
The petitioner was working as a Headmistress in Panchayat
Samiti, Gondia. Due to the reduction of the posts of Headmasters-
Headmistresses; under the Right to Education Act, the petitioner was
reverted from the post of Headmistress to the post of Assistant Teacher.
When the matter was heard on 17.11.2016, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner fairly stated that the petitioner is not aggrieved by the part of
the order by which the petitioner was not permitted to work as a
Headmistress, but she was aggrieved by the other part of the order that
transferred her from Gondia Panchayat Samiti to Deori Panchayat Samiti.
The only issue required to be considered by this Court was whether the
petitioner could have been transferred from Panchayat Samiti, Gondia to
Panchayat Samiti, Deori, though there was a post of Assistant Teacher
vacant in Panchayat Samiti, Gondia from where she was transferred and
her transfer to Deori Panchayat Samiti would have posted her at a place
that was more than 30 kilometers from the place where the husband of
the petitioner is posted. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts, we had
granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner and stayed the part of the
order that transferred the petitioner from Panchayat Samiti, Gondia to
Panchayat Samiti, Deori. In view of the stay to the impugned order, the
wp6522.16.odt
petitioner continued to work in Panchayat Samiti, Gondia as an Assistant
Teacher.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
It appears from the perusal of the documents annexed to the petition that
by the part of the order, that is, impugned in the instant petition, the
petitioner is transferred at a place which is more than 30 kilometers from
the place where her husband is posted. Normally, it would be necessary
for the Zilla Parishad to post the husband and wife within a distance of 30
kilometers under the husband-wife unification policy. It appears that
though a post of Assistant Teacher is vacant in Zilla Parishad, Gondia, the
petitioner is transferred to Zilla Parishad, Deori. Even otherwise, we are in
the month of December and it would not be proper to shift the petitioner
to Panchayat Samiti, Deori at this stage in the midst of the session. If the
Zilla Parishad so desires, the Zilla Parishad is free to consider transferring
the petitioner to a place, which is within 30 kilometers from the place
where her husband is posted, when the General Transfers are effected in
Summer, 2017.
Hence, 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.
wp6522.16.odt
After the writ petition is disposed of, the learned Counsel for
the Zilla Parishad appears and seeks time to file reply. However, since the
order would not adversely affect any of the respondents to a great extent,
specially the Zilla Parishad, who is at liberty to take steps to transfer the
petitioner in the General Transfers, that would be effected in the recent
future, we reject the prayer made by the Counsel for the Zilla Parishad.
Order accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
