Bombay High Court
Shashikant S/O Bapurao Pande vs Mahatma Mungsaji Adiwasi ... on 9 March, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp3955.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3955 OF 2015.
Shashikant s/o Bapurao Pande,
Aged about 40 years, Occupation
Service, resident of at and post
Sandwa, Tahsil Pusad, District
Yavatmal. ....PETITIONER.
ig VERSUS
1. Mahatama Mungsaji Adiwasi Shikshan
Sanstha, Pusad, through its
President, resident of Pusad,
Tah. Pusad, District Yavatmal.
2. Head Master,
Mahatama Mungsaji Vidyalaya,
Pusad, Tahsil Pusad,
District Yavatmal.
3. Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal
District Yavatmal.
4. Ramesh Vithoba Bhandgar,
aged Major, Occupation Service,
Jr. Clerk, Mahatama Mungasaji
Vidyalaya, Pusad, District Yavatmal. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr. I.N. Chaudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Anjan De, Advocate for Respondent no.1
Mr. A.V. Palshikar, A.G.P. for Respondent no.3.
------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/03/2016 00:01:48 :::
Judgment wp3955.15
2
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
& P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 09, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
1.
Heard Shri I.N. Chaudhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Anjan De, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri A.V. Palshikar,
learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3.
2. Petitioner, a Junior Clerk in the employment of respondent no.1
was transferred earlier from headquarter Pusad to Dhamangaon on
14.06.2013. By order dated 23.06.2014, he has been transferred back from
Dhamangaon to Pusad. By the impugned order dated 25.06.2015, he has
been transferred again from Pusad to Dhamangaon.
3. Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel submits that this shows periodical
transfer and hence, is in breach of Rule 41 of the Maharashtra Employees of
Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. He is relying upon the
Judgment wp3955.15
observations of this Court in judgment reported at 2011 (1) Mh.L.J. 307
(Pawar Bhagwantrao Bhivrao .vrs. Shri Swami Vivekanand Shikshan
Sanstha, Kolhapur and others).
4. Shri Anjan De, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.1 is relying upon reply affidavit as also additional submissions filed today
to urge that transfer is on administrative ground.
5. Shri Palshikar, learned A.G.P. points out that it is a dispute
between a private management and its employee.
6. The employer has pointed out that after his transfer back to Pusad
vide order dated 23.06.2014, the petitioner has indulged into local politics
and has also been elected as head of some group. He therefore was not in a
position to pay attention towards his duties. Because of this involvement
and resulting negligence, management has thought it fit to transfer him to
Dhamangaon. He submits that Pusad is headquarter of the Institution and
work there requires constant attention.
7. In this background, we have specifically enquired from the
petitioner whether there is any challenge to the impugned transfer on the
Judgment wp3955.15
ground of mala fides. The petitioner has stated that there is no such
challenge.
8. Perusal of Rule 41 of the 1981 Rules shows that management
conducting more than one school has been asked not to transfer any of its
employees, except on administrative ground. Division Bench of this Court in
paragraph no.5 of the judgment (supra), has found that Rule 41 impliedly
prohibits framing of any policy by management to periodically transfer its
staff and such a policy would be contrary to the language and spirit of Rule
41.
9. Here, petitioner has not proved that management has any policy to
periodically transfer the employees. Management has assigned a reason for
its decision and validity thereof is not in dispute before us. In this situation,
we cannot hold that transfer is not on account of administrative reason. No
case is made out warranting intervention. Writ Petition is accordingly
rejected. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
