Bombay High Court
Premsingh Ramchandra Rathod vs The Block Devp. Officer, ... on 29 July, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp6943.15.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.6943 OF 2015
PETITIONER: Premsingh Ramchandra Rathod, aged
about 41 years, Occupation-Service,
R/o at post Waghadi Sewadas Nagar,
Tah. and Dist- Yavatmal.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. The Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
2. The Zilla Parishad, Through its Chief
ig Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Yavatmal.
3. The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Yavatmal.
4. The Block Education Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Yavatmal.
Shri A. P. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. Tajwar Khan, Asstt. Government Pleader for respondent no.1
Shri R. D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for the respondent nos.2 to 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 29
th JULY, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned
Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
25-7-2015 passed by the respondent no.1 in an appeal filed by the
petitioner challenging his order of transfer dated 1-8-2014.
wp6943.15.odt 2/5
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on
the post of Swayam Sevak. Subsequently, he was continued in the
employment on the post of Assistant Teacher. On 1-8-2014, the
Block Development Officer issued an order of transfer thereby
transferring the services of the petitioner from Waghadi to Belora.
It is the case of the petitioner that he had immediately protested
against the order of transfer on the ground that same was contrary
to the circulars dated 18-5-2011 and 1-3-2014. According to the
petitioner, he had been discharging duties at Waghadi only with
effect from 1-3-2014 and, therefore, as there were other Assistant
Teachers who were serving in the said School prior to said date, he
was not liable to be transferred. By the impugned order, the
Additional Commissioner after observing that the petitioner's
transfer was prior to stipulated period did not grant any relief to
him. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. After hearing respective Counsel for the parties, it is
found that on 1-8-2014 after the order of transfer was issued the
petitioner has sought to raise a protest against his transfer by
seeking to issue a communication to the Chief Executive Officer.
Similar such request was again made on 2-8-2014. These requests
were not taken into consideration by the said authorities. In para
nos.4 and 5 of the appeal a specific ground in that regard has been
wp6943.15.odt 3/5
raised. In the reply filed on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer, it
has been observed that the written communication in that category
was not accepted by the Block Development Officer. This aspect,
however, has not been considered by the Additional Commissioner
while deciding the appeal. Considering the fact that it was the
specific case of the petitioner that there was breach of Circulars
dated 1-3-2014 and 18-5-2011, which was sought to be brought to
the notice of the authorities, said aspect ought to have been
considered by the respondent no.1. It was merely observed by the
respondent no.1 that the transfer of the petitioner was effected
prior to the stipulated period.
5. In this view of the matter, the interests of justice would
be served if the respondent no.1 is directed to reconsider the
appeal filed by the petitioner in the light of grounds raised in the
appeal and reply thereto. As the appeal challenges the order of
transfer the same should be decided expeditiously. Accordingly
the following order is passed:
(1) The order dated 25-7-2015 passed by the respondent
no.1 is quashed and set aside.
(2) The appeal filed by the petitioner is restored for being
considered on merits. For said purpose, the parties shall appear
before the respondent no.1 on 22-8-2016. The appeal shall be
wp6943.15.odt 4/5
decided within a period of two months from said date. The
respective contentions of the parties on merits are kept open.
(2) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE
//MULEY//
wp6943.15.odt 5/5
CERTIFICATE
"I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order."
Uploaded by : Sanjay B. Muley, Uploaded on : 02-08-2016
Personal Assistant.
