Bombay High Court
Pramod S/O. Kailashrao Shinde vs Shri. Shivaji Education Society, ... on 2 March, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP5358.15 [J].odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5358 OF 2015
Pramod s/o Kailashrao Shinde,
Aged about 48 years,
Occupation - Service,
R/o. Behind Wayal Complex,
Near Rautwadi Bus Stop, Chikhali,
Tahsil-Chikhali, District-Buldana.
ig .. Petitioner
.. Versus ..
1] Shri Shivaji Education Society,
Congress Nagar, Amravati
through its Secretary,
2] Shri Shivaji High School, Chikhali,
District-Buldana, through its Headmaster,
3] Shri Shivaji Ashram Shala,
Anchalwadi, Tahsil-Chikhali,
Distt. Buldhana, through its Headmaster,
4] The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Buldana.
5] Assistant Commissioner,
Social Welfare, New Administrative
Building, Chikhali Road, Buldana,
District-Buldana. .. Respondents
..........
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner,
Mrs. P.S. Chaudhari, Advocate h/f Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for the
respondent nos.1 to 3,
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent nos.4 and 5.
..........
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:30:29 :::
WP5358.15 [J].odt 2
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 02, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated
11.9.2015 issued by the Secretary of the respondent no.1-Society
thereby seeking to transfer the services of the petitioner on the post of
Assistant Teacher from Shri Shivaji High School at Chikhali to Ashram
School at Ancharwadi.
According to the petitioner, he was appointed as an Assistant
Teacher by an order dated 3.7.1998, after following the due procedure.
His initial appointment was at the Secondary Ashram School,
Ancharwadi. On 13.6.2000, the services of the petitioner were
transferred to the school at Chikhali, after which the petitioner
continued to discharge his duties there. This order of transfer was
approved by the Education Officer on 2.9.2000. However, by
communication dated 14.9.2015, the services of the petitioner were
sought to be re-transferred to the school at Ancharwadi on the ground
that initial order of transfer dated 13.6.2000 was not in accordance with
law.
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that pursuant to the earlier transfer order dated 13.6.2000,
the petitioner had joined his duties at Chikhali and this order of transfer
was also approved by the Education Officer. Merely on the basis of
some complaints made to the Education Officer, the impugned order has
been passed directing the re-transfer of the petitioner's services. He
further submitted that now there is no post available for the petitioner in
Ashram School at Ancharwadi and, therefore, his services could not have
been directed to be transferred at said school.
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the respondent nos.4 and 5, relied upon the affidavit-in-reply
and submitted that as there was absence of necessary permission before
transferring the services of the petitioner on 13.06.2000, he was directed
to be re-transferred at the school at Ancharwadi. Reference was made
to the Circular dated 26.6.1992 in that regard.
Mrs. P.S. Chaudhari, the learned counsel for the respondent
nos.1 to 3 submitted that the impugned action was taken pursuant to the
directions issued by the respondent no.5-Assistant Commissioner, Social
Welfare.
The facts on record indicate that after the services of the
petitioner were transferred on 13.6.2000, the same was duly approved
by the Education Officer by order dated 2.9.2000. After almost fifteen
years, the Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, directed the re-
transfer of the petitioner ignoring the fact that the transfer order dated
13.6.2000 had been approved by the Education Officer on 2.9.2000.
The transfer of the petitioner having been effected under Rule 41 of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service),
Rules, 1981, there was no justification whatsoever in directing the
services of the petitioner to be re-transferred to the School at
Ancharwadi. Moreover, the impugned order itself indicates the absence
of availability of the post held by the petitioner. Even on this ground,
the petitioner services could not have been transferred.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 11.9.2015
cannot be sustained. The same is, therefore, quashed and set aside.
The writ petition is allowed, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gulande
