Bombay High Court
Surekha Vinayakrao Mulkhede vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 27 February, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
GROUP I
WRIT PETITION NO. 5984 OF 2016
Sau. Sunita Damodharrao Deshmukh
Age: 40 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Vidyanagar, Udgir Road, Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya Mumbai- 400 032.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6089 OF 2016
Gangadhar Hanmantrao Patil
Age: 46 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Bahegaon Road, Behind Sai Mandir,
Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya Mumbai- 400 032.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
2
4. The Block Development Officer,
Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6091 OF 2016
Sushma Dadarao Chilkar
Age: 39 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Rui, Tq. Naigaon,
Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya Mumbai- 400 032.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Naigaon, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6092 OF 2016
Suman Marutirao Jadhav
Age: 49 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: A/P. Kuntur, Tq. Naigaon
Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya Mumbai- 400 032.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
3
3. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Naigaon, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6093 OF 2016
Sau. Alka Yadavrao Mane
Age: 53 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Dattanagar No.2, Rampur Road,
Near Brahmakumari Center, Degloor
Tq. Degloor, Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya Mumbai- 400 032.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Umari, Tq. Umari, Dist. Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6094 OF 2016
Sarojani Shriram Jadhav
Age: 29 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Parvatikunj, Patel Nagar,
Dharmabad, Tq. Dharmabad,
Dist: Nanded 431 809. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
4
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya Mumbai- 400 032.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Dharmabad, Tq. Dharmabad,
Dist. Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6203 OF 2016
Shankar Limbaji Balkone
Age: 44 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Chowk Galli, Umari, (Railway Station)
Tq. Umari, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya Mumbai- 400 032.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Umari, Tq. Umari, Dist. Nanded. ...Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6214 OF 2016
Ramesh Chanbasappa Bhalke
Age: 50 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Zilla Parishad Central Primary School,
Atkali, Tq. Billoli, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
5
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya Mumbai- 400 032.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Billoli, Tq. Billoli, Dist. Nanded. ...Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6216 OF 2016
Sunanda Lachappa Bhanje
Age: 40 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Sadhana Nagar, Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya Mumbai- 400 032.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. ...Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6436 OF 2016
Surekha Vinayakrao Mulkhede
Age: 40 years, Occu: Service,
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
6
R/o. Vidyanagar, Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya Mumbai- 400 032.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. ...Respondents.
Mr. V.D. Salunke, h/f. Mr. A.A. Nimbalkar Advocate for petitioners.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent/State.
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4 i.e. Chief
Officer, Education Officer and Block Development Officer.
GROUP II
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7355 OF 2016
Surekha d/o. Dashrath Marawar
Age: 41 years, Occu: Service as Asst. Teacher,
R/o Vishnupuri, Nanded,
Tq. and Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
7
2. The Chief Executive Officer
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7357 OF 2016
Manjusha d/o. Uddhavrao Raje,
Age: 43 years, Occu: Service as
Asst. Teacher, Zilla Parishad
High School, Umari Tanda,
R/o Parimal Nagar,
District Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
2. The Chief Executive Officer
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7354 OF 2016
Mahananda d/o. Govindrao Divekar
Age: 40 years, Occu: Service as Asst. Teacher,
R/o Barhali, Tq. Mukhed,
Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department,
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
8
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
2. The Chief Executive Officer
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7342 OF 2016
Jayshree Balajirao Borlepwar
Age: 45 years, Occu: Service As
Asst. Teacher, Zilla Parishad
Primary School, Uttam Nagar
Kendra Umri Bazar, Tq. Kinwat
District Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
2. The Chief Executive Officer
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7959 OF 2016
Smt. Sudha d/o. Dashrathrao Kshirsagar
Age: 43 years, Occu: Service,
As Asst. Teacher, R/o Gautam Nagar,
Hadgaon, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Rural Development and Water
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
9
Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Chief Executive Officer
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7358 OF 2016
Sandhya d/o. Dhondiba Dudde,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Service as
Asst. Teacher, Zilla Parishad
Primary School, Umri Tanda
R/o. District Nanded ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032.
2. The Chief Executive Officer
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9716 OF 2016
Smt. Taibai d/o. Rama Lahubande
Age: 43 years, Occu: Service as
Trained Graduate Teacher(Language),
R/o Ashtoor Tq. Loha,
Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
10
Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Divisional commissioner,
Aurangabad Region,
Aurangabad.
3. The Chief Executive Officer
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
4. Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for petitioners.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent/State.
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondents, Chief Officer,
Education Officer.
GROUP NO. III
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7339 OF 2016
1. Nilkanth Madhavrao Chonde
Age: 51 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Chintamani Apartment,
Ringroad, Nanded.
2. Sanjay Gangaram Nakkawar
Age: 42 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Sharda Nagar, Deglur,
Taluka- Deglur, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division,
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
11
Aurangabad.
3. Zilla Parishad, Nanded
District: Nanded.
Through its Chief Executive Officer
4. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
District: Nanded. ....Respondents.
Mr. A.N. Sabnis, Advocate for petitioners.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent/State.
Mrs. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondents 3 and 4.
GROUP NO. IV
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1849 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 3413, 5064 OF 2016
Smt. Sangita d/o. Dhondibarao Ingole,
Age: 45 years, Occu: Service,
Working as Head Mistress,
In Zilla Parishad High School, Chaufala,
Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through: Secretary,
Education, Mantralaya Mumbai.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
3. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
Mr. S.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent/State.
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
12
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
GROUP NO. V
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8112 OF 2016
Arun Gundurao Chamkure
Age: 40 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Jambhli,Tal: Mukhed
Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Commissioner, Aurangabad
3. The Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
Through it's CEO, Nanded. ....Respondents.
Mr. R.R. Mantri & Mr. R.R. Sancheti, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent/State.
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
GROUP NO. VI
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6867 OF 2016
Shrikant S/o. Narsinhacharya Joshi
Age: 45 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Dharmabad, Tq. Dharmabad,
Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
(Through it's Secretary,
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
13
Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32)
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6505 OF 2016
Rajkumar s/o. Marotrao Warle
Age: 44 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Manjula Nagar, Bhokar,
Tq. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
(Through it's Secretary,
Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32)
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6860 OF 2016
Nagesh S/o. Rajeppa Mathpati
Age: 40 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Billoli, Tq. Billoli, Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
(Through it's Secretary,
Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32)
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
14
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6414 OF 2016
Ratnamala Shriram Moralwar
Age: 41 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Sadgurunagar, Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
(Through it's Secretary,
Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32)
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6394 OF 2016
Sushma d/o. Narayanrao Budkewar
Age: 42 years, Occu: Service,
R/o 3, Sidhi Arcade (A), Namaskar
Chowk, Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
(Through it's Secretary,
Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32)
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
Mr. V.A. Dhakne, Advocate for petitioners.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent/State.
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
15
GROUP NO. VII
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7201 OF 2016
Anuradha D/o. Tukaram Kamble
Aged: 40 years, Occupation: Service,
R/o: Bhimgad, Tq. Kandhar,
District- Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through
Secretary, Rural Development and
Womens Development Department
Mantralya, Mumbai.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8442 OF 2016
Gajnan D/o. Laxmikant Rudrawar
Aged 40 years, Occupation Service,
R/o. Devul Galli, Loha. Tq. Loha,
District: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through
Secretary, Rural Development and
Womens Development Department
Mantralya, Mumbai.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7082 OF 2016
Ujjawala D/o. Amratrao Gavalwad,
Aged: 41 years, Occupation: Service,
R/o Abhinav Nagar, Kandhar, Tq.
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
16
Kandhar, District: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through
Secretary, Rural Development and
Womens Development Department
Mantralya, Mumbai.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6968 OF 2016
Jyoti D/o. Sopanrao Narate
Aged: 31 years, Occupation: Service,
R/o: Abhinav Nagar, Loha, Tq. Loha,
District: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through
Secretary, Rural Development and
Womens Development Department
Mantralya, Mumbai.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6954 OF 2016
Dnaynoba D/o. Venkati Korde
Aged: 32 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o At Hipparga, Post Dhanora, Tq.
Loha, District: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through
Secretary, Rural Development and
Womens Development Department
Mantralya, Mumbai.
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
17
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
Mr. S.P. Kausalye, Advocate for petitioners.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent/State.
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
GROUP NO. VIII
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6783 OF 2016
1. Shakuntala Digambar Dukare
Age:41 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Chaytanya Nagar, Nanded,
Tq & Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Dist: Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6782 OF 2016
1. Avinash S/o Ashok Reddy
Age: 32 years, Occu: Service,
R/o : Kini, Tq: Bhokar,
Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
18
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Chief Executive officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Dist: Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6787 OF 2016
1. Nilesh S/o Bapurao Godhane
Age: 41 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Nabhalaxmi Appt, Block No.8,
Ththagat Nagar, Malegaon Road Nanded,
Tq & Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Chief Executive officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Dist: Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9859 OF 2016
1. Anita Gangadhar Ranbhirkar
Age: 40 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Chhatrapati Nagar Nanded,
Tq & Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
19
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Chief Executive officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Dist: Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9860 OF 2016
1. Manisha Manoharrao Malvatkar
Age: 40 years, Occu: Service,
R/o : Vasant Nagar Nanded,
Tq & Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Chief Executive officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Dist: Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9856 OF 2016
1. Prakash Kahinathrao Mungal,
Age: 50, Occu: Service,
R/o : Ijali
Tq: Mudkhed, Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
20
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Chief Executive officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Dist: Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9857 OF 2016
1. Ramrao Bhujangrao Devane
Age: 49, Occu: Service,
R/o : Chhatrapati Nagar Nanded
Tq & Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Chief Executive officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Dist: Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9858 OF 2016
1. Shankar Rajaram Padgilwar
Age: 50, Occu: Service,
R/o: Vasantnagar Nanded
Tq & Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
21
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Chief Executive officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Dist: Nanded. ....Respondents.
Mr. S.C. Bhosle, Advocate for petitioners.
Mrs. A.V.Godhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent/State.
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent No.3
GROUP NO. IX
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8115 OF 2016
Somnath Maroti Barhate,
Age: 40 years, Occu: Service
R/o: Jaldhara, Tal: Kinwat
Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Commissioner, Aurangabad
3. The Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Through it's CEO, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9622 OF 2016
Prakash S/o Gangaram Holkar
Age: 51 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Dhanegaon, Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
22
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Commissioner, Aurangabad
3. The Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Through it's CEO, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8126 OF 2016
Shivaji Marotrao Patil
Age: 42 years, Occu: Service
R/o: Balegaon, Tal: Umri
Dist: Nanded ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Commissioner, Aurangabad
3. The Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Through it's CEO, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8133 OF 2016
Sau. Khan Gausiyabegum Rahimkhan
Age: 53 years, Occu: Service
R/o: Kolambkhed, Tal : Mahur,
Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
23
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Commissioner, Aurangabad
3. The Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Through it's CEO, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8129 OF 2016
Uttam Laxmanrao Saknure,
Age: 50 years, Occu: Service
R/o: Narsifata, Tal: Naigaon
Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Commissioner, Aurangabad
3. The Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Through it's CEO, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8128 OF 2016
Hanman Dnyanobarao Chaudhari,
Age: 45 years, Occu: Service
R/o : Dhanaji, Tal: Mukhed
Dist: Nanded ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Commissioner, Aurangabad
3. The Zilla Parishad, Nanded
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
24
Through it's CEO, Nanded. ....Respondents.
Mr. R.R. Mantri and R.R. Sancheti, Advocate for petitioners.
Mrs. A.V.Godhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent/State.
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent No.3.
GROUP NO. X
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9560 OF 2016
Ramakant S/o Bhaurao Tumbarphale,
Age: 34 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Usman Nagar, Tq. Kandhar,
Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
4. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9136 OF 2016
Yogita d/o Anantrao Shatri
Age: 42 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Sarkhani Tanda, Tq. Kinwat,
Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
25
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
4. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7809 OF 2016
Suresh s/o Vitthalrao Bele
Age: 36 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Mohapur, Tq. Kinwat,
Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
4. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ....Respondents.
Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for petitioners
Mrs. A.V. Godhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent/State.
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent No.3
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
26
GROUP NO.XI
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10142 OF 2016
Mangala Manikrao Dumale
Age: 46 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Bamani, Tq. Mukhed,
Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya Mumbai-400 032.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Muked, Tq Mukhed, Dist: Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10143 OF 2016
Hanmant S/o Madhavrao Thavare
Age: 46 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Khutmapur, Tq. Degloor,
Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya Mumbai- 400 032.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. The Education Officer (Primary)
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
27
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist: Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10144 OF 2016
Sow. Shobha D/o Kishanrao Shrirame
Age: 43 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Khutmapur, Tq. Degloor,
Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya Mumbai- 400 032.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist: Nanded.
5. The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti Kinwat,
Tq. Kinwat, Dist: Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10145 OF 2016
Sudhir S/o Hanmantrao Dhadele
Age: 31 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Markhel, Tq. Degloor,
Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
28
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya Mumbai- 400 032.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla parishad, Nanded.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist: Nanded.
5. The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti Kinwat,
Tq. Kinwat, Dist: Nanded. ....Respondents.
Mr. Umakant B. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners
Mrs. A.V. Godhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent/State.
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
GROUP NO. XII
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6784 OF 2016
Sou. Surekha Pralhadrao Shinde
Age: 40 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Siradhon, Ta. Kandhar,
Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
3. The Zilla Parishad Nanded
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
29
Through Chief Executive Officer
4. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
Dist: Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6481 OF 2016
Sou. Rajashree Madhavrao Chole
Age: 35 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Kurula, Ta. Kandhar,
Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
3. The Zilla Parishad Nanded
Through Chief Executive Officer
4. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
Dist: Nanded. ....Respondents.
Mr. A.V. Patil-Indrale, Advocate for petitioners.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent/State.
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
GROUP NO. XIII
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7009 OF 2016
1. Yuvraj S/o. Tukaram Rajarupe,
Age: 43 years, Occupation: Service,
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
30
R/o: Teacher Colony,
Loha, Tq: Loha, Dist: Nanded.
2. Nandkumar S/o Ramchandra Gundre,
Aged: 34 years, Occupation: Service,
Mathurai Nivas, Teacher Colony,
Gadgebaba Nagar, Tq. Loha
District: Nanded.
3. Sangameshwar S/o Madhukar Kalme,
Aged: 33 years, Occupation: Service,
C/o R.R Gundre, Teacher Colony, Tq. Loha,
District: Nanded.
4. Ashok S/o Devrao Kagne,
Aged: 48 years, Occupation: Service,
R/o Chandrabhaga Nivas, Muktai Nagar,
Tq. Kandhar, District: Nanded.
5. Dhondiram S/o Satwaji Kadam,
Aged: 37 years, Occupation: Service,
R/o Abhinav Nagar, Tq. Kandhar,
District: Nanded.
6. Madhukar S/o Vittalrao Kadam,
Aged: years, Occupation: Service,
R/o Sambhaji Nagar, Tq. Kandhar,
District: Nanded.
7. Chandrakant S/o Ganeshrao Johare,
Aged: 45 years, Occupation: Service,
R/o Abhinav Nagar, Tq. Kandhar,
District: Nanded.
8. Vitthal S/o Bhimrao Dagadgave,
Aged: 48 years, Occupation: Service,
R/o Teachers Colony, Tq. Loha,
District: Nanded.
9. Vitthal S/o Sambhaji Amlapure,
Aged: 48 years, Occupation: Service,
R/o Shambhraj Nivas, Muktai Nagar,
Tq. Kandhar, District: Nanded.
10. Madhav S/o Kishanrao Bhosale,
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
31
Aged: 39 years, Occupation: Service,
R/o Snkhed, Tq. Loha, District: Nanded.
11. Pandurang S/o Sambhaji Mundhe,
Aged: 46 years, Occupation: Service,
R/o Bidwainagar, Tq. Loha,
District: Nanded.
12. Vinayak S/o Prahalad Debadwar,
Aged: years, Occupation: Service,
R/o Laxmiprasad Nivas, Shivkalyan Nagar,
Tq. Loha, District: Nanded.
13. Balaji S/o Nagorao Kendre,
Aged: 49 years, Occupation: Service,
R/o Gajanan Nagar, Tq. Kandhar,
District: Nanded.
14. Kanta W/o Shrirang Dange,
Aged: years, Occupation: Service,
R/o Teacher Colony, Tq. Loha,
District: Nanded.
15. Hanmant S/o Narsing Jadhav,
Aged: 34 years, Occupation Service,
R/o Matoshri Nivas, Bapu Nagar,
Tq. Degloor, District: Nanded.
16. Shrikant S/o Dashrathrao Gorshetwar,
Aged: 35 years, Occupation: Service
R/o Bapu Nagar Tq. Degloor, Dist: Nanded.
17. Keshav S/o Shankarrao Chavan,
Aged: years, Occupation: Service,
R/o Snkhed, Tq. Loha, District: Nanded.
18. Mehbarban S/o Shankarrao Pawar,
Aged: 41 years, Occupation: Service,
R/o Venkatesh Nagar, Tq. Kandhar,
District: Nanded.
19. Madhav S/o Sambhaji Sarkale
Aged: years, Occupation: Service
M. Post- Dapka, Tq- Mukhed, Dist- Nanded.
Vishnukant S/o Shankarrao Landge
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
32
M. Post- Landge Wadi,
Malakoli, Tq. Loha Dist: Nanded.
20. Vishnukant Shankarrao Ladge,
Aged: 29 years, Occu: Service,
R/o At Post Landgewadi, Tq. Loha,
District: Nanded.
21. Bhagwan Sambhaji Gajbhare,
Aged: 34 years, Occupation: Service,
R/o Bhavsar Chowk, Nabnded,
District Nanded.
22. Shivaji S/o Gangadhar Jadhav
Aged: years, Occupation: Service,
M.Post- Rajura,
Tq. Mukhed, Dist- Nanded. ....Petitioners.
Versus
1. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
District Nanded.
2. The Director of Education,
Pune, District Pune.
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through : The Chief Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
State of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. ....Respondents.
Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent No. 1
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent/State.
GROUP NO. XIV
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7387 OF 2016
Usha s/o. Sambaji Gorakwad
Age: 34 years, Occu: Service,
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
33
R/o. Chaitnaya Nagar, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Village Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
Tq. & Dist: Nanded. ....Respondents.
Mr. V.B. Dhage, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar , A.G.P. for respondent/State.
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
GROUP NO. XV
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7565 OF 2016
Laxmi D/o. Vithalrao Halbandge (Marshivane)
Age: 46 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: At. Post. Jamb (Bk)
Tq.: Mukhed Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6745 OF 2016
Svita D/o. Tukaram Gudewar (Dasewar)
Age: 38 years, Occu: Service,
R/o : At. Post. Nanded.
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
34
Tq: Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6742 OF 2016
Mohhamed Akber S/o. Mohhamed Nazeer
Age: 40 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: At. Post: Nanded
Tq., Dist: Nanded. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Nanded. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7567 OF 2016
Dnyaneshwar S/o. Devidas Tippanbone
Age: 35 years, Occu: Service
R/o: At. Post: Nadihattarga
Tq. : Nilanga Dist: Latur ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2017 00:12:01 :::
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
35
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Nanded. ....Respondents.
Mr. Abhishek Deshpande h/f. Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for
petitioners.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent/State.
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : February 27, 2017.
JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard
both the sides for final disposal.
(i) All the petitions are filed for challenging the General
Transfers made by Zilla Parishad, Nanded of its employees. Some
petitioners are from non-teaching staff and the remaining petitioners
are teaching staff (both from Class III category). The case of each
petitioner is being discussed separately as in some cases facts are
different. The transfers are under challenge and so, the relevant
rules and policy of the employer with regard to transfer of its
employees need to be seen first.
(ii) In catena of cases, the Apex Court has made it clear that
no Government servant or employee of public undertaking has any
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
legal right to be posted forever at any particular place or at a place
of his choice, if the appointment is to class or category of
transferable post from one place to other. It is also settled law that
in such case, when the transfer is in accordance with the rules and
policy of the State, the Courts or Tribunals cannot ordinarily interfere
with such orders and the Courts, in such matters need to start with
presumption that such transfer was in public interest and it was for
efficiency in public administration. In view of this position of law,
employees, who challenge the transfer orders need to show to the
Court that malafides can be attributed to the order of transfer
[Reliance placed on MANU/SC/0585/2004 [State of U.P. and
Ors. Vs. Siya Ram and Anr.].
2) In the case reported as 2010 (2) Bom.C.R. 648
(BOMBAY HIGH COURT) (AURANGABAD BENCH) [Vyankatrao
Ghalappa Savle Vs. Zilla Parishad and Ors.], this Court had
occasion to consider the transfers of Class III and Class IV
employees of Zilla Parishad. In that case, for inter district transfer,
the rules given in Government Resolution (hereinafter referred to as
'G.R.' for short) dated 27.5.2000 were considered. The employees
had argued in respect of their so called right to get benefit of couple
convenience rule. In that matter also, this Court held that if the
transfer is well within the relevant rules, it cannot be cancelled
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
unless malafides are made out. In the case reported as
MANU/MH/0093/1998 [Yogesh Pratap Singh Vs. Government
of Maharashtra and Ors.], this Court, while considering the
challenge to transfer on couple convenience rule, made observation
at para No. 5, which are relevant for present purpose, as under :-
"Before we go to the pleadings, we must bear in mind
the approach of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
scope of judicial review in matters of challenge to an
order of transfer. As far as the guidelines regarding
posting of husband and wife at a particular place are
concerned, we may refer to the decision of the
Supreme Court in Bank of India Vs. Jagjit Singh
Metha, MANU/SC/0095/1992 : (1992) I LLJ 329 SC. In
para 5 of the judgment at page 520 of the report, the
Supreme Court observed that there can be no doubt
that ordinarily, and a far as practicable, the husband
and wife who are both employed should be posted at
the same station even if their employers be different.
The desirability of such a course is obvious. However,
this does not mean that their place of posting should
invariably be one of their choice, even though their
preference may be taken into account while making
the decision in accordance with the administrative
needs. In the case of All India Service (like case before
us), the hardship resulting from the two being posted
at different stations may be unavoidable at times
particularly when they belong to different services and
one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the
other's posting. While choosing the career and a
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
particular service,the couple have to bear in mind this
factor and be prepared to face such a hardship if the
administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit
the postings of both at one place without sacrifice of
the requirements of the administration and needs of
other employees."
3) In the present matters, most of the petitioners are
claiming that the benefit of G.R. dated 15.5.2014 of Rural
Development Department of the State Government is not given to
them. In view of such contention, this G.R. and the other relevant
G.Rs. are being discussed by this Court and sum and substance of
the policy of the Government is quoted. In G.R. dated 15.5.2014,
there are many parts. This Court is discussing only some parts and
further, only those portions of the parts, which are relevant for the
present purpose.
In Part I of the aforesaid G.R. of 2014, the reasons
behind the policy are given. Some important points of this part are
as follows :-
(I) The policy is applicable to the general transfers
and if the previous policy is modified, such modification is
specifically mentioned in the G.R. to show that the said
policy is changed.
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
(II) To ascertain as to whether employee is due for
transfer, the relevant date is 31st May of that year and the
service rendered continuously up to that date, at that
station is to be counted.
(III) Object or purpose behind the policy :- (a)
The object is to fill the vacancies of Tahsils which are tribal
areas and of the Tahasils where there are always more
vacancies than the average vacancies of Tahsils. It is also
to see that the directions given in Writ Petition No.
3278/2010 by this Court at Principal Seat on 13.9.2012
and 21.11.2012, to fill all vacancies of tribal area, naxalite
area (T.A./N.A.) are complied.
(b) After filling the vacancies of T.A./N.A. and other
Tahsils mentioned in clause (a), where there are always
vacancies, create balance of vacancies for other Tahsils.
(c) For achieving this object, filling the vacancies,
consider request transfer applications of employees who
have not even completed five years of service at the
station and use administrative power.
(d) To see that the employees, who have worked
for more time in T.A./N.A. are allowed to come out of those
Tahsils.
(e) To see that the employees, who need to be
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
given priority are posted at convenient places, and
(f) To see that except the employees who are
exempted from transfers, all other employees are made to
work in T.A./N.A.
4) For making posting in T.A./N.A., following procedure is
required to be followed :-
(a) The employees who have worked continuously
for three years in T.A./N.A. (excluding the leave availed
during said posting) are not to be considered in the first
process of transfer. Thus, the employees, who had worked
in the past in such areas are to be protected and they are
not to be taken in consideration zone for their transfers
from Tahsil where they are working.
(b) For filling the vacancies in T.A./N.A., the
employees are to be considered on the basis of their
seniority.
(c) If after considering the employees from
category (b), the posts of T.A./N.A. remain vacant, then
the employees, who had worked in T.A./N.A. in the past,
five years prior to the relevant date, can also be considered
for such posting and for that, their seniority is to be
considered.
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
5) The employees of Zilla Parishad will be entitled to couple
convenience transfer if the other spouse is working in the same Zilla
Parishad, within the area of Zilla Parishad in Departments of State
Government, Central Government, other Local Body, Public Section
Undertaking (of Central or State Government) or in Government
approved institution. If the employee is entitled to such benefit, the
distance between the place of work of such employee and the place
of work of other spouse should not ordinarily be more than 30 k.m.
However, the limit of the distance will not apply if no vacant post for
such convenient posting is available. For making an attempt to give
convenient place, the counsellings is to be done before issuing order
of transfer.
6) The employees, who are handicapped as per the
provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and Rules made
by the Government in that regard from time to time are exempted
from transfer. The parents of mentally retarded children (in case
parents are not alive, the employee who is brother or sister of
mentally retarded children) are exempted from transfer. For getting
the exemption, these employees need to produce certificate issued
by Civil Surgeon or competent authority before 30th April of that
year. (There are other exempted categories, but they are not
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
relevant for the present matters, so they are not mentioned).
7) The following sequence need to be observed for making
transfers.
(a) First, the employees who are working in
T.A./N.A. and who have completed three years of
continuous service in that area are to be treated as the
persons due for transfer and they are to be transferred to
give them posting in non T.A./N.A. Priority is to be given to
various categories of such employees in following
sequence.
(i) The employees suffering from paralysis.
(ii) The employees who have undergone heart
operation.
(iii) The employee, who has one kidney or who has
undergone kidney transplant operation or the
employee requiring dialysis.
(iv) The employee suffering from cancer.
(v) The wife of Ex-Serviceman or Serviceman.
(vi) Unmarried lady employee.
(b) For making transfers of employees who are
working in areas other than T.A. and N.A. also, aforesaid
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
sequence of the priority is to be observed. Thus, the
employees of these special categories are to be given
priority at the time of their transfers and an attempt is to
be made to see that their transfers are made at convenient
places. This shows that for that, seniority is to be ignored.
(c) After making transfers of (a) and (b) categories
of employees mentioned above, the employees from
T.A./N.A., who have completed three years of service, but
who do not fall under aforesaid categories are to be
considered for transfers.
(d) After considering categories (a), (b) and (c)
mentioned above, request transfer applications are to be
considered and such request transfers should not be
against the object/policy mentioned in the G.R. viz. to fill
the vacancies in T.A./N.A. and in Tahsils where there are
always more vacancies than average vacancies. Thus, care
needs to be taken that request transfer is not to be made
in contravention of the policy. For request transfer also,
special categories are given like categories (a) and (b) and
in those categories one more category is added viz. couple
convenience category. Clause 4 (4) of Part I of the G.R.
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
shows that for request transfers of the employees, falling
under the special categories, the condition of putting in
service of five years at that place is relaxed. However,
when there are many request transfer applications, the
sequence of priority given in the aforesaid clause need to
be followed and further, the seniority of the application for
such transfer also needs to be considered. Thus, when
there is application of employee for request transfer and
that employee is due for transfer and he falls under special
category, he will get priority over similarly placed
employee, who is not due for transfer, but who wants
transfer on request.
(e) When the postings are to be made of the
employees in T.A./N.A., counselling of lady employees need
to be done first so that they get their choice postings.
(f) Mutual Transfers :- The employees, who have
worked in Tahsil for five years are eligible for making
application for mutual transfer. That application can be
considered only after considering the transfers of aforesaid
categories. The G.R. further makes it clear that the ground
of mutual transfer is not applicable to the employees who
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
are transferred under aforesaid (a) to (e) categories which
includes request transfer. Further, the ground of mutual
transfer is not available for inter Tahsil transfer.
(g) Ordinarily, the place at which the employee had
worked in the past is not to be given to him on transfer.
This condition would however not apply to solitary post.
Similarly, ordinarily the employee is not to be posted at his
native place.
8) The period necessary for treating employee due for
transfer :-
(i) The employee, who has worked continuously
for three years (excluding leave period) in T.A./N.A. by stay
there, is to be treated as due for transfer.
(ii) For inter district transfer of employee working
in area other than T.A./N.A., the employee, who has
completed 10 years of continuous service by his stay there,
is treated as due for transfer.
9) The transfer is not to be made if vacant post is not
available and vacant post is not becoming available due to transfer
of other employees.
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
10) Clause 8 (10) of Part I of the G.R. provides that if
irregularities in inter district transfer is brought to the notice of
Divisional Commissioner, the Divisional Commissioner is to make
inquiry in to it and give decision on it within 30 days. The decision of
the Divisional Commissioner is to be treated as final.
11) Time Table for Transfers :- Inter district transfers are
to be made once in a year between 5th May and 15th May. For the
transfer, time table given in clause 9 of Part I of G.R. is to be
followed. The time table include publishing of, preparation of
seniority list, taking objection on seniority list, giving decision on
objections and making transfers on the basis of seniority list after
counselling. This process involves giving of the names of the places
of choice by the employees. They are, however, subject to the
aforesaid policy.
12) In Part II of G.R. some more conditions are quoted which
need to be kept in mind while making the transfer and they are as
under :-
(I) (a) For transfer on administrative ground in any
case 10% employees need to be transfered from T.A./N.A.
to other Tahsils. This percentage does not include the
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
persons who are residing in such areas and who do not
want transfer. Thus, the minimum percentage of 10% is in
respect of the employees who want transfer from such
areas. Even if no employee is due for transfer, for filling of
the vacancies in T.A./ N.A., there is no limit of any
percentage of transfer of employees from other Tahsils to
T.A./N.A. In the same way for having balance of vacant
posts in other Tahsils where there are usually more
vacancies than average vacancies, there is no limit of
transfer of employees from other Tahsilds to such Tahsil.
(b) For transfer on request, there will be limit of 5% for
teaching staff, Gramsevak and Village Development Officer.
Thus, if the request transfer would exceed the limit of 5%,
such transfer cannot be allowed.
(II) Before starting of the process of counselling, the list
of vacant posts available and the posts which will be
become vacant due to transfers in that year is required to
be published. The publication of such list gives opportunity
to the employees to give their choice for convenient
posting in writing. If it is not possible to give such
convenient posting, during counselling, the alternatives
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
available are to be told to such employee and the recording
of this process is required to be done. Written record is also
required to be created of such process. If any employee
does not turn up for counselling, in that case also, the Zilla
Parishad is expected to consider the choice given by
employee in the application filed for that year for transfer.
The counselling is also subject to policy of the State quoted
above, filling of vacancies in T.A./N.A. and other Tahsils
where there are always more vacancies than average
vacancies.
(III) The priority given in Clause IV of Part I is to be
followed and the candidates as per that clauses are to be
called for counselling and then the remaining employees
are to be called as per their seniority for counselling.
13) Part III and Part IV of the G.R. are not that relevant for
the present matters. Part V of G.R. shows that the employer can
reduce the period mentioned above and increase the period in
exceptional cases where there is such need for administrative
purpose. The procedure to be adopted also shows that power is
given to Divisional Commissioner to supervise the things and
intervene when the correction is required.
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
14) Copy of correspondence made by Government with all
the Zilla Parishads having date 16.5.2014 shows that the minimum
percentage of 10% mentioned above, for transfers of employees
from T.A./N.A. was increased to make it 30% for the year 2016. This
was done as many employees were required to work in T.A./N.A. for
the period longer than expected by the policy. This also makes clear
the priority of the Government viz. to see that employees working in
T.A./N.A. are not detained their for longer period as the other
employees are ordinarily not ready to go to that area and such
employees are not relieved unless the reliever reaches there.
15) The G.R. dated 6.8.2002 of General Administration
Department of Government shows that tribal areas are to be given
special treatment. Even the posts of officers were not to be kept
vacant in such areas and special scheme was created for the benefit
of the persons living in that area.
16) It was submitted for petitioners from some proceedings
that Tahsils Kinwat and Mahur do not fall under the categories
T.A./N.A. mentioned in G.R. dated 15.5.2014 and 6.8.2002. In that
regard, there is G.R. dated 9.3.1990 of Tribal Development
Department of the Government. This G.R. shows that new areas
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
were declared as T.A. for giving the benefits of Government schemes
to the people of that area and one Tahsil Viz. Kinwat of Nanded
district was declared as scheduled area for that purpose. The area of
entire Kinwat Tahsil was declared as scheduled area, having 185
villages, though it was declared that area was partly covered as
scheduled area. Kinwat was subsequently divided to create new
Tahsil viz. Mahur. But, the area of Mahur is still scheduled area under
the G.R. There is one G.R. dated 15.10.2015 of Tribal Development
Department of Government showing that benefits of the schemes
are given to villages from Tahsil Mahur.
17) The aforesaid policy of the Government shows that
special treatment is given to T.A./N.A. and the employees are
expected to work in that area atleast once. When it becomes
necessary, the employee who had worked in that area in the past
can be again posted in that area. This decision is in public interest.
Only the employees, who are totally exempted from transfer can say
that they cannot be transfered to T.A./N.A. This Court is expected to
go with the presumption that the seniority lists were prepared as per
the aforesaid procedure and the special categories were considered
separately. It is already observed that couple convenience rule is
only for convenience purpose and on that ground, exemption cannot
be claimed from transfer. The rule of couple convenience cannot
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
come in the way of Zilla Parishad to transfer an employee to
T.A./N.A.
18) Most of the petitions involve the transfer of petitioners to
tribal area (either Kinwat Tahsil or Mahur Tahsil). The proceedings
show that after receiving the transfer orders most of the petitioners
directly filed writ petitions in this Court and they did not approach
the Divisional Commissioner, forum created for considering the
grievances. Only when this Court gave directions in September,
2016, most of the petitioners approached the Divisional
Commissioner to tell their grievance. The record and the
submissions show that in some cases, the orders were cancelled by
the Commissioner. Reasons are given for rejection of the
representations by Divisional Commissioner. The employees who had
come to this Court and whose representations are allowed by the
Commissioner, withdrew their proceedings filed in this Court. Those
cases were involving transfers to area other than T.A./N.A.
19) The submissions made in the present proceedings show
that no malafides can be attributed to the orders of transfers made
against the petitioners. It is shocking that many petitioners did not
join the new postings even when aforesaid policy is made by the
Government in public interest. After giving directions by this Court in
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
September 2016, few petitioners joined the new postings. Some
petitioners are now contending that they were not allowed to join
the new posting after giving directions by this Court by informing
that the posts were not vacant. It can be said that in view of the
policy of the Government, some adjustment was required to be
made by Zilla Parishad to see that the posts in T.A./N.A. do not
remain vacant due to conduct of the employees like some of the
petitioners. Benefit of this circumstance cannot be given to the
petitioners. The learned counsel for Zilla Parishad has produced a
letter dated 1.2.2017 showing that alternate arrangement was made
by Zilla Parishad due to circumstance that the petitioners had not
joined their duties in tribal area. In the letter, it is informed that if
the petitioners are ready to resume the duty at the places shown in
transfer order, the teachers who were posted there for making
arrangement will be removed from there and the petitioners will be
allowed to resume the duty. In view of this information also, this
Court holds that there is no force in the contention made by some of
the petitioners that they were not allowed to join new postings. It
can be said that there are some letters written by the few schools of
that nature, but when the authority is ready to take steps as
mentioned in letter dated 1.2.2017, this Court needs to believe that
such step will be taken.
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
20) The dates of transfer orders show that most of the
petitioners were expected to join new postings before 10th of June
2016. Most of the petitioners have not joined new postings. Some
petitioners joined the new postings only when this Court made order
in September 2016. Due to the aforesaid conduct of the petitioners,
the petitioners. who have not joined at the places given to them in
transfer order, for administrative convenience, it will be open to Zilla
Parishad to place them at other places and for that there will not be
need to go for counselling again. Due to this conduct of those
petitioners, it will open to Zilla Parishad to take disciplinary action
including starting of departmental enquiry for dereliction in duty and
disobedience of the order and it will be open to the Zilla Parishad to
take decision with regard to the period of absence in view of
aforesaid conduct of the petitioners. As such petitioners have
created complications by approaching this Court and they have
made it difficult to implement the aforesaid policy of the
Government, this Court has formed the opinion that they need to be
made to pay cost so that they realize that they cannot misuse the
process of law.
21) Hereinafter the cases of each and every petitioner are
being considered separately. This Court is considering the petitions
in Groups as many counsels argued for different groups of the
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
matters.
GROUP NO. I
WRIT PETITION NO. 5984 OF 2016
22) The petitioner is a lady primary graduate teacher and
she is transferred from Zilla Parishad Primary School Degloor to
Gokuda Marathi, Center Nayacamp, Tahsil Kinwat, a tribal area,
district Nanded. Here only it needs to be mentioned that most of the
petitioners are transferred to Tahsils Kinwat and Mahur which are
declared as T.A. as already observed. It is the case of petitioner from
Writ Petition No. 5984/2016 that the distance between Nayacamp
and the place of employment of her husband is around 230 k.m. and
as the distance is more than 30 k.m. prescribed by the policy, the
transfer needs to be cancelled. Her husband is working as higher
secondary teacher in private junior college from Khatgaon, Tahsil
Biloli, District Nanded since 1997. This private college has no other
college at other place and so, the husband will never be transferred.
This petitioner never worked in T.A. and the transfer is as per her
seniority. In view of the policy already quoted, it is not open to her
to say that she cannot be transferred at the place which is situated
at the distance of more than 30 k.m. from the place of service of her
husband. Though there is the circumstance that the husband will
never be transferred and she is required to be posted in T.A., she did
not join the duty and directly filed the writ petition even when there
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
was forum available to raise her grievance before Divisional
Commissioner. There is wrong presumption in the minds of the
employees like this petitioner that when they file proceedings in High
Court the employer is not expected to implement the transfer
orders. It appears that there is misconception to some extent in the
mind of authority also and the authority does not take action against
such employee if they do not join the new posting due to pendency
of such matters. It appears that in the present matter, due to the
order made by this court in September 2016, she attempted to join
the new posting in October 2016. In view of the policy already
discussed, the Zilla Parishad could not have kept the place of posting
of petitioner Nayacamp vacant and so, some alternate arrangement
was made and the post was filled. The Divisional Commissioner has
rejected the representation which was filed after filing of the writ
petition. First time in the present proceeding submission was made
by the learned counsel for petitioner that some employees are senior
to her, but they are not transferred. This contention involve enquiry
in to facts and this Court needs to presume that this factual aspect
must have been considered by Zilla Parishad and the Divisional
Commissioner. Further, the employees, who can be senior to the
petitioner, may be having the benefit of special circumstances,
categories already mentioned by this Court as a policy of the
Government. Those persons are not made parties to the present
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
proceeding.
23) It was also argued by the learned counsel for petitioner
that when under the policy not more than 10% employees can be
transferred from T.A., in the present matter more than 10%
employees are transferred out of T.A. and so, the order of transfer
needs to be cancelled. It was submitted that even if the case of
respondent that percentage is increased to 30% is considered, in
that case also more than 30% employees cannot be transferred from
T.A. This Court has already discussed the policy of the Government
in that regard. This Court has no hesitation in mind to observe that
the percentage mentioned is minimum percentage and the
convenience of the employees working in T.A. needs to be
considered first and it is open to the administration to transfer all the
employees who have completed three years of continuous service in
T.A. if it is for their convenience.
24) In view of aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that
the petition is liable to be dismissed. As the petitioner has caused
inconvenience and problems of many kinds to the administration and
the administration is required to spend for litigation, minimum cost
of Rs.15,000/- needs to be imposed on the petitioner. In the result,
the petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. The petitioner
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
is to pay cost of Rs.15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6089 OF 2016
25) The petitioner is a primary teacher and she is transferred
from Katewadi, Center Hottal, Tq. Degloor to Dayaldhanora, Center
Shivani, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded. It is his case that the new
place is situated at the distance of about 180 k.m. from the place of
service of his wife. His wife is Zilla Parishad teacher. The arguments
which were advanced in Writ Petition No. 5984/2016 were also
advanced in this matter and for the same reasons, this Court holds
that the petitioner cannot get relief of cancellation of transfer. In the
present matter also, the petitioner never worked in T.A. The
submissions made and the record show that his wife refused to take
posting in the same Tahsil where the petitioner was being
transferred. His representation is also rejected. In view of these
circumstances, it is not possible to interfere in the transfer order. As
he refused to join the new posting, petitioner needs to pay cost of
Rs.15,000/- to Zilla Parishad. In the result, the petition stands
dismissed. Rule stands discharged. The petitioner is to pay cost of
Rs.15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6091 OF 2016
26) The petitioner is primary teacher. She is transferred from
Paradwadi, Center Sujlegaon, Tahsil Naigaon, District Nanded to
Lokhandwadi, Center Kosmet, Tahsil Kinwat, District Nanded. It is
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
the case of petitioner that her husband is headmaster of private
school of Rui (Bk), Tahsil Naigaon, District Nanded and the distance
between the new posting and the place of her husband is about 288
k.m. She did not join new posting. Her husband cannot be
transferred as his employer is not having any other school or college
at other place. She never worked in T.A. Her representaion is
rejected. For the reasons given in aforesaid writ petition, this Court
holds that interference is not possible in the transfer order. As she
did not join the duty, cost needs to be imposed on her. In the result,
the petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. The petitioner
is to pay cost of Rs.15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6092 OF 2016
27) The petitioner is working as Primary Teacher at
Sategaon, Center Krushnur, Tahsil Naigaon, District Nanded and
petitioner is transferred to Bhisi, Center Bhisi, Tahsil Kinwat, District
Nanded. It is the case of petitioner that her husband is Cluster Head
in Zilla Parishad, Nanded at Talegaon, Tahsil Umri. The record and
the submissions made show that her husband refused to go to same
Tahsil, Kinwat. The petitioner never worked in T.A. Her
representation is rejected. For the reasons already given, this Court
holds that no interference is possible. As she did not join the new
posting, cost needs to be paid by her to the Zilla Parishad. In the
result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. The
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
petitioner is to pay cost of Rs.15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6093 OF 2016
28) The petitioner, who is working as Cluster Head is
transferred from center Golegaon, Tahsil Umri to center Anjankhed,
Tahsil Mahur, District Nanded. It is the case of petitioner that her
husband is Zilla Parishad teacher working at Biloli and the place of
work of husband is situated at the distance of more than 250 k.m.
from her new posting. She never working in T.A. There is no
secondary school in Mahur. Other place was offered to her husband
like Kinwat or Hadgaon to take care of convenience of the couple,
but the husband of petitioner refused to take such posting. Her
representation is rejected. Other argument was advanced for the
petitioner is that she is suffering from asthma. This disease is not
covered as special category under the policy of Government. It
appears that she joined subsequently, on 30.9.2016 on the new
posting. As she did not join immediately, this Court holds that she
needs to pay cost of Rs.15,000/- to Zilla Parishad. In the result, the
petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. The petitioner is
to pay cost of Rs.15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6094/2016
29) The petitioner is transferred from Patoda (Bk), Center
Ratnalli, Tahsil Dharmabad, District Nanded to Central Primary
School, Jaldhara, Center Jaldhara, Tahsil Kinwat, District Nanded. It
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
is the case of petitioner that her husband is Assistant Teacher in
private school at Swagatnagar, Taroda (Kh.), Tahsil and District
Nanded and this place is situated at the distance of 125 k.m. from
the place of her new posting. She never worked in T.A. Her husband
will never be transferred. Her representation is rejected. She joined
the duty on 1.10.2016. For the reasons given in other matters, this
Court holds that it is not possible to interfere in the order. In the
result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. The
petitioner is to pay cost of Rs.15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6203 OF 2016
30) The petitioner is transferred from Balegaon, Center
Talegaon, Tahsil Umri, District Nanded to Patoda (Bk.), Center
Pathoda (Bk.), Tahsil Kinwat, District Nanded. It is the case of
petitioner that his wife is primary teacher in Zilla Parishad Central
Primary School, Umri, Tahsil Umri, District Nanded and so, he cannot
be transferred to the new place. The record shows that his wife
refused to take posting in the same Tahsil, Kinwat where her
husband, the petitioner is transferred. The petitioner never worked
in T.A. His representation is rejected. He joined the duty, but
subsequently, on 1.9.2016. So, for the reasons given in other
matters, this Court holds that it is not possible to interfere in the
order. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule stands
discharged. The petitioner is to pay cost of Rs.15,000/- to the Zilla
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6214 OF 2016
31) The petitioner, headmaster is transferred from Central
Primary School at Atkali, Center Atkali, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded to
Primary School at Shindgi-Tanda, Center Mohpur, Tahsil Kinwat,
District Nanded. It is the case of petitioner that his wife is primary
teacher in Zilla Parishad and she is working at Atkali. He has further
contended that he is suffering from cirrhosis of liver with partial
hypertension. This disease is not covered under the special category.
The record shows that his wife has refused to go to Tahsil where the
petitioner was being transferred. He never worked in T.A. His
representation is rejected. He joined the duty on 1.10.2016. For the
reasons given in other matters, this Court holds that it is not
possible to interfere in the order. In the result, the petition stands
dismissed. Rule stands discharged. The petitioner is to pay cost of
Rs.15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6216 OF 2016
32) The petitioner is working as lady primary teacher. She is
transferred from Shahajinagar, Center Pethamrapur, Tahsil Degloor,
District Nanded to Nandgaon-Tanda, Center Jaldhara, Tahsil Kinwat,
District Nanded. Her husband is Zilla Parishad Primary Teacher
working at Saidan, Center Jambhala, Tahsil Hadgaon, District
Nanded. The place of husband is at the distance of 120 k.m. from
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
the place of transfer of petitioner. It is contended that petitioner had
worked in Kinwat Tahsil in the past. There is record showing that she
had joined in the Tahsil Kinwat in the past on 1.8.1996. But there is
no record of putting in continuous service of three years as per the
requirement. Further, there was no such contention in the petition
and no such contention was made before Divisional Commissioner
when hearing was given on representation. The record shows that
her husband refused to go to the same Tahsil where the petitioner is
posted. Her representation is rejected. As she did not work
continuously for three years in the T.A., for the reasons given in
other matters, the petition is liable to be dismissed. She did not join
the duty at new posting. In the result, the petition stands dismissed.
Rule stands discharged. The petitioner is to pay cost of Rs.15,000/-
to the Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6436 OF 2016
33) The petitioner is transferred from Karegaon, Center
Pethamrapur, Tahsil Degloor, District Nanded to Zilla Parishad
Primary School at Vastishala Hanumannagar Holi, Center Kosmet,
Tahsil Kinwat, District Nanded. Husband of petitioner is working as
Higher Grade Assistant in Life Insurance Corporation at Nanded and
the distance is around 200 k.m. The petitioner never worked in T.A.
As the husband cannot be transferred at the place of petitioner, the
couple convenience is not possible. Her representation is rejected. It
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
appears that she joined the new posting immediately and so, the
cost need not be imposed on her. In the result, the petition stands
dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.
34) The record of this first group shows that instructions
were passed by the petitioners to their counsel to withdraw the Writ
Petition Nos. 5984, 6089, 6091, 6092, 6094, 6203, 6214 and 6216
of 2016. In spite of that the petitions were not withdrawn and the
petitioners were argued on merits. In many of these petitions, even
relief of cancellation of transfer order was not claimed and
amendment was made in such petitions at eleventh hour. So, the
petitions are to be treated as dismissed on merits.
GROUP NO. II
WRIT PETITION NO. 7355 OF 2016
35) The petitioner is transferred from Zilla Parishad Primary
School, nagthana (Bk.), Center Umari, Tahsil Umri, District Nanded
to Zilla Parishad Primary School Chikhali (Kh.), Center Chikhali (Bk.),
Tahsil Kinwat, District Nanded at the distance of around 210 k.m.
from the place of work of her husband. Her husband is working as
Assistant Teacher in private high school, CIDCO, Nanded and so, he
cannot be transferred. The petitioner never worked in T.A. She
joined the duty, new posting immediately. For the reasons already
given, it is not possible to interfere in the decision. In the result, the
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as
to costs.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7357 OF 2016
36) The petitioner is transferred from Primary School Koti
Tirth, Center Pimpalgaon (Ko), Tahsil Nanded to Umari Tanda, Center
Umari Ba., Tahsil Kinwat. It is the case of petitioner that her husband
is working in Guru Gobind Singhji Institute of Engineering and
Technology, Nanded as Laboratory Assistant. She never worked in
T.A. Her husband cannot be transferred from the present place. She
joined the duty on 4.6.2016. Her contentions are similar to the
contentions made in the petitions already decided. There are vague
contentions with regard to not following the rule of seniority. For that
also, observations are made in previous proceedings. In the result,
the petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order
as to costs.
WRIT PETITION NO.7354/2016
37) The petitioner is transferred from Central Primary School
Barhali, Tahsil Mukhed to Nandgaon Tanda, Center Jaldhara, Tahsil
Kinwat. It is her case that her husband is secondary teacher at
Barhali in a private school. Her husband cannot be transferred. She
did not join new posting. She never worked in T.A. For the reasons
already given, it is not possible to interfere in the matter. In the
result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. The
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
petitioner is to pay cost of Rs.15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7342 OF 2016
38) The petitioner is transferred from Vaijapur, Cender
Nivgha, Tahsil Mukhed to Uttamnagar, Center Umri Bazar, Tahsil
Kinwat. It is her case that her husband is working in private
institution at Nanded. It appears that her husband is working as
driver and so, he does not fall under the categories mentioned in
policy. She never worked in T.A. She joined the new posting on
4.6.2016. For the reasons already given, the petition stands
dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7959 OF 2016
39) The petitioner is transferred from Zilla Parishad Primary
School Navi Abadi, Tahsil Hadgaon to Zilla Parishad Central Primary
School, Sainagar, Center Wai (Bazar), Tahsil Mahur. Her husband is
working as Assistant Teacher at the distance of 80 k.m. from this
place in a private college at Hadgaon. She joined the new posting on
10.6.2016. She never worked in tribal area. Her husband cannot be
transferred. For the reasons already given, the petition is dismissed.
Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7358 OF 2016
40) The petitioner is transferred from Jaitapur, Center
Pimpalgaon, Tq. Nanded to Umri Tanda, Center Umri (Ba.), Tahsil
Kinwat. It is the case of petitioner that her husband is working in
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
private college at Nanded. She joined new posting on 4.6.2016. Her
husband cannot be transferred. She never worked in tribal area. For
the reasons already given, it is not possible to interfere in the
matter. The petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged with
no order as to costs.
WRIT PETITION NO. 9716 OF 2016
41) The petitioner is transferred from Central Primary
School, Kurula, Tahsil Kandhar to Dongargaon, Center Lyahari, Tahsil
Hadgaon. Her husband is working as Assistant Teacher in Zilla
Parishad School. As per the record, the reason for transfer is
balancing vacancies in Tahsil. It is her grievance that some
representations of similar nature were allowed. This Court has gone
through the same and the reasoning shows that in those cases due
to transfer of those persons, balancing was not achieved. In the
present matter, representation is rejected as no such ground is
available. For the reasons already given, no interference is possible.
So far as her grievance is concerned, she had reason to approach
this Court and so, this Court holds that it is not necessary to impose
cost on her if she has joined new posting. So, the petition is
dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
GROUP III
WRIT PETITION NO. 7339 OF 2016
42) This petition is filed by two employees. During
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
arguments, the learned counsel withdrew the petition of petitioner
No. 1 and the matter was argued for petitioner No. 2. This petitioner
claims that he is office bearer of Primary Teachers Association and
this association is recognized association of the teachers and as
such, he cannot be transferred for the period of 15 years in total. It
is his case that at the relevant time, he was not due for transfer and
so, his transfer order needs to be set aside. The submissions made
and the record show that even prior to the transfer, he was not
posted at Nanded headquarter. It is his case that he is Executive
President for district Nanded of aforesaid association. G.R. dated
20.12.2012 filed by this petitioner shows that one employee
nominated by State Association for district can be taken on
Committee which is to work as Advisory Committee in administration
matters of Zilla Parishad. A copy of letter written by the association
is produced to inform that he is office bearer. This fact is disputed by
filing affidavit in reply and it is contended by respondents that the
name of the association given by the petitioner does not appear as
recognized association in the G.R. dated 4.9.2014. As the matter
involves disputed facts, it was necessary for the petitioner to
approach the proper forum, Divisional Commissioner as mentioned
in G.R. dated 15.5.2015. This Court holds that petition cannot be
allowed. He did not join the new posting. In the result, the petition
stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petitioner No. 2 is to pay cost
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
of Rs.15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
GROUP IV
WRIT PETITION NO. 1849 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS.3413 AND 5064 OF 2016
43) The petitioner was Head Mistress at Zilla Parishad High
School, Chaufala, Nanded. She is transferred to Zilla Parishad High
School (Girls) at Kinwat. She wants Nanded to take care of her
college going issues. This order was on promotion and it was issued
on 27.1.2016. In the past, she had requested for posting at the
present place, Chaufala. Writ Petition No. 8774/2014 was filed by
her and it was disposed of by this Court by giving direction to
respondents to decide the representation filed by her. This
representation came to be rejected on 16.10.2015. After that the
petitioner was asked to join at Kinwat on promotion. The post at
Kinwat is vacant for about three years. Then she filed Writ Petition
No. 10903/2015. Status-quo was granted on 29.10.2015. But,
subsequently the petition was rejected with direction to again
consider the representation dated 12.9.2014. Again by order dated
26.1.2016, the petitioner was asked to join new posting at Kinwat.
Now, it is her case that she could not have been transferred in the
mid of the term and she could have been considered for transfer
only for the academic year 2016-17 and so, the transfer is
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
challenged.
44) No interim relief is granted in favour of petitioner in the
present matter. As this Court had refused to grant interim relief, she
approached the Supreme Court. But, she did not get interim relief.
In spite of that she did not join the new posting. The submissions
made and the record show that her husband is working as Assistant
Teacher in Kinwat, Tahsil itself and it will be convenient for both of
them to work in the same Tahsil. But, she did not join the said
posting. The aforesaid circumstances show that she created
circumstances and she is trying to use those circumstances by
contending that it will be mid term transfer.
45) In reply, the respondent Zilla Parishad contended that
the petitioner tried to pressurize the Chief Executive Officer in may
ways. She used backward caste and tribe association of employees
to create pressure. Then she picked up quarrel with Chief Executive
Officer and she gave abuses to him in filthy language. in respect of
that incident, show cause notice was issued for taking disciplinary
action against her and then she gave false report against the Chief
Executive Officer for registering crime under the provisions of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
against the Chief Executive Officer. Police did not find substance in
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
the matter. Then she approached criminal Court and then she came
to this Court. This Court imposed cost of Rs.10,000/- on her. It
appears that due to the aforesaid conduct, the petitioner is kept
under suspension. But her headquarter is aforesaid place and so,
she needs to report at aforesaid new posting. Copies of complaints
made by the petitioner is kept on record and they are consistent
with the reply affidavit. Even when she is under suspension, she did
not report at new posting. In view of these circumstances, it is open
to Zilla Parishad to take proper action also for not obeying the order
of transfer and take proper disciplinary action against the petitioner.
She created problems in the administration and she has misused the
process of law. This Court holds that cost of atleast Rs.25,000/-
needs to be imposed on her, so that she learns lesson. Such
employee become liability for any department. In the result, the
petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. The petitioner is to
pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
GROUP V
WRIT PETITION NO. 8112 OF 2016
46) The petitioner is transferred from Jambhali, Tahsil
Mukhed, District Nanded to Laxminagar, Tahsil Kinwat. It is the case
of petitioner that his wife is Assistant Teacher in Zilla Parishad and
her place of posting is at the distance of 180 k.m. from the place of
new posting of petitioner. He joined the new posting on 16.6.2016.
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
He has contended that he is entitled to benefit of couple convenience
policy of the Government and so, his transfer needs to be cancelled.
Admittedly, he never worked in tribal area in the past. His
representation is also rejected on the aforesaid ground. In the
result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged with no
order as to costs.
GROUP NO. VI
WRIT PETITION NO. 6867 OF 2016
47) The petitioner is transferred from Zilla Parishad Central
Primary School Junni, Tahsil Dharmabad to Zilla Parishad Central
Primary School, Phulenagar, Tahsil Kinwat, a tribal area. His wife is
working as Assistant Primary Teacher in Zilla Parishad, Biloli at the
distance of 130 k.m. from the new posting of petitioner. His
representation is rejected as he never worked in tribal area. It is not
his case that his wife would take posting in Kinwat Tahsil. He did not
join the new posting. This Court holds that it is not possible to
interfere in the matter. In the result, the petition stands dismissed.
Rule is discharged. The petitioner is to pay cost of Rs.15,000/- to the
Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NOS. 6505, 6860, 6414 AND 6394 OF 2016
48) All the petitions are filed to challenge the transfer order
by contending that they are entitled to the benefit of couple
convenience policy. In these proceedings, other spouse is in private
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
service and so, the other spouse cannot be transferred to take care
of the convenience of petitioner. The petitioners were either
transfered to Kinwat or Mahur in the tribal area. In Writ Petition No.
6394/2016, ground of illness like spondylosis is also given. But the
said illness does not fall in special category quoted in aforesaid G.R.
In the result, the petitioners are dismissed. Rule is discharged. Each
petitioner from aforesaid writ petitions is to pay cost of Rs.15,000/-
to the Zilla Parishad.
GROUP VII
WRIT PETITION NO. 7201 OF 2016
49) The petitioner is transferred from Chincholi, Tahsil
Kandhar, District Nanded to Islampur, Tahsil Kinwat. She joined new
posting on 10.6.2016. The other spouse is working in private school
and so, there is no possibility of transfer of other spouse. It is not
the case of petitioner that petitioner had worked in tribal area at any
time in the past. For the reasons given in other petitions, the
petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to
costs.
WRIT PETITION NO. 8442 OF 2016
50) The petitioner was transferred from Chikhal-Bhosi, circle
Panbhosi, Tahsil and District Nanded to Ejali, Tahsil Mudkhed. Then
the new posting was changed on 8.7.2016 to make it Talegaon,
Circle Tamsa, Tahsil Hatgaon, District Nanded. It is the case of
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
petitioner that his place of new posting is at the distance of 140 k.m.
from the place of work of his wife and so, the transfer needs to be
cancelled. The wife is working in private school at Loha and she
cannot be transferred. This transfer is made for balancing vacancies,
to fill the vacancies which are more than average vacancies in
Hatgaon. For the reasons already given in other matters, this Court
holds that no interference is possible. He did not join the duty at
new posting. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is
discharged. The petitioner is to pay cost of Rs. 15,000/- to the Zilla
Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7082 OF 2016
51) The petitioner is transferred from Eataipura, Tahsil
Kandhar, District Nanded to Pangri, Circle Bisi, Tahsil Kinwat, District
Nanded. Husband of petitioner is working in Secondary Ashram
Shala, Bijewadi, Tahsil Kandhar and the place is situated at the
distance of 170 k.m. from new posting of petitioner. She joined the
duty immediately. She never worked in tribal area. For the reasons
already given, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged with
no order as to costs.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6968 OF 2016
52) The petitioner is transferred from Devulgaon, Tahsil
Loha, District Nanded to Bedi Tanda, Circle Pradhan Sangvi, Tahsil
Kinwat, a tribal area. It is the case of petitioner that this place is
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
situated at the distance of 205 k.m. from the place of work of
husband and husband is also working in Zilla Parishad School at
Hattalwadi. The petitioner joined the duties immediately. She never
worked in tribal area. For the reasons already given, the petition is
dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6954 OF 2016
53) The petitioner is transferred from Penur, Circle Shevadi,
Tahsil Loha, District Nanded to Raipur Tanda, Tahsil Kinwat, which is
tribal area. It is the case of petitioner that place of work of his wife
is situated at the distance of 220 k.m. from his new posting. The
wife is working as Gramsevak in Loha Tahsil. It is the case of
petitioner that he joined the duty immediately. He never worked in
tribal area. For reasons already given, the petition stands dismissed.
Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
GROUP VIII
WRIT PETITION NO. 6783 OF 2016
54) The petitioner is transferred from Zilla Parishad School
Rita, Tahsil Bhokar to Kaya Kivat, Tahsil Kinwat, which is tribal area.
She never worked in tribal area. She is claiming benefit of couple
convenience policy. Her husband is working as Naib Tahsildar at
other place. She joined the new posting on 10.6.2016. For the
reasons already given, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged
with no order as to costs.
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6782 OF 2016
55) The petitioner is transferred from Kini, Tahsil Bhokar to
Chikhali (E), Tahsil Kinwat, a tribal area. It is the case of petitioner
that his wife is working in Zilla Parishad and place of work of his wife
is situated at the distance of 125 k.m. from his new posting. It is not
the case of petitioner that wife is ready to go to his new place. He
never worked in tribal area. He joined on 4.6.2016. In view of the
reasons given already in other petitions, the petition is dismissed.
Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6787 OF 2016
56) The petitioner is transferred from Navi Abadi, Tahsil
Bhokar to Jaldhara, Tahsil Kinwat. It is the case of petitioner that his
wife is working as teacher in Zilla Parishad at Karbi, Tahsil Bhokar
and this place is situated at the distance of 125 k.m. from his new
posting. It is his case that his wife is suffering from corrosive
stricture of oesophagus and she has undergone surgery and it is
necessary to look after her. He never worked in tribal area. On the
aforesaid ground, the transfer could not have been stopped. He
joined new posting on 4.6.2016. For the reasons already given in
other proceedings, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged
with no order as to costs.
WRIT PETITION NO. 9859 OF 2016
57) The petitioner is transferred from Taroda (B), Tahsil and
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
District Nanded to Wai Bazar, Tahsil Mahur, which is tribal area. It is
the case of petitioner that her husband is working in health
department of Zilla Parishad, Nanded. She did not resume duty on
the new posting. She never worked in tribal area. For the reasons
already given in other petitions, the petition is dismissed. Rule is
discharged. The petitioner is to pay cost of Rs. 15,000/- to Zilla
Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 9860 OF 2016
58) The petitioner is transferred to Himayatnagar to Pangari
Tanda, Tahsil Kinwat, a tribal area. It is the case of petitioner that
her husband is working in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company at other place and the distance between the two posting
will be 175 k.m. She is claiming the benefit of couple convenience
policy. She did not join the new posting. For the reasons already
given, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. The petitioner is
to pay cost of Rs. 15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 9856 OF 2016
59) The petitioner is Head Master and he is transferred from
Pimpalgaon, Tahsil Ardhapur to Lehari, Tahsil Hadgaon. This transfer
is made for balancing the vacancies in Hadgaon. It is his case that
due to his transfer, balancing is not achieved. He did not join
immediately the new posting. This Court cannot consider as to
whether the balancing was achieved or not and the proper authority
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
like Divisional Commissioner could have considered that point. For
the reasons already given in other matters, the petition is dismissed.
Rule is discharged. The petitioner is to pay cost of Rs. 15,000/- to
the Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 9857 OF 2016
60) The petitioner is Head Master and he is transferred from
Dabhad, Tahsil Ardhapur to Ambala, Tahsil Hadgaon for balancing
vacancies. He did not join the new posting. For the reasons already
given, this Court holds that interference is not possible. In the
result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. The
petitioner is to pay cost of Rs. 15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 9858 OF 2016
61) The petitioner is transferred from Zilla Parishad School
Ambegaon, Tahsil Ardhapur to Dorli, Tahsil Hadgaon for balancing
the vacancies. He did not join the new posting. For the reasons
already given, this Court holds that interference is not possible. In
the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. The
petitioner is to pay cost of Rs.15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
GROUP NO. IX
WRIT PETITION NO. 8115 OF 2016
62) The petitioner is transferred from Berali (Kh.), Tahsil
Mukhed to Jaldhara, Tahsil Kinwat which is a tribal area. It is the
case of petitioner that he had worked at Rodanaik Tanda, Tahsil
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
Kinwat between 1995 to 1999, for the period of four years and so,
he again cannot be transferred to tribal area. It can be said that the
transfer order under challenge was made in the year 2016, and for
last more than 15 years he was serving out of tribal area. The
relevant portions of the G.Rs. are already quoted. For filling the
vacancies in tribal area, which is to be given preference, such
transfer is possible. Fortunately he joined the new posting on
4.6.2016. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged
with no order as to costs.
WRIT PETITION NO. 9662 OF 2016
63) The petitioner is transferred from Kendriya Primary
School Kawadgaon, Tahsil Degloor District Nanded to Mohagaon,
Tahsil Kinwat, a tribal area. It is his case that he was not due for
transfer and so, he could not have been transferred. Fortunately, he
joined the new posting. The provisions of relevant G.Rs. are already
quoted showing that for filling the vacancies, the persons who are
even not due can be transferred if the list of persons who are due is
exhausted. However, there is one more ground. It is his case that
his son is mentally retarded. He obtained certificate on 7.7.2016.
Thus, it was not produced for consideration before 30.4.2016. Due
to absence of such certificate, he was transferred. He want transfer
to Degloor Tahsil as his son requires treatment at Hyderabad and
Nanded. It appears that he filed representation before Divisional
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
Commissioner on 21.7.2016. This Court has seen the certificate
issued by the Medical Board. In view of the provisions of G.R.
already quoted, this representation needs to be considered by Zilla
Parishad or the Divisional Commissioner. As there was no illegality or
irregularity in making the transfer order, in view of the aforesaid
circumstances, the petition cannot be allowed. But the petitioner is
entitled to place his representation before Divisional Commissioner
and also before the Chief Executive Officer in view of the aforesaid
ground. Such representation needs to be considered within 45 days
if it is already there and if it is not there, petitioner is entitled to
make the representation which needs to be decided within 45 days
from its receipt. The circumstance that it will be mid term transfer
will not come in the way of petitioner to get the relief as provided in
G.R. So, the petition is dismissed with aforesaid observation. Rule is
discharged with no order as to costs.
WRIT PETITION NO. 8126 OF 2016
64) The petitioner is transferred from Kendriya Primary
School, Hanegaon, Tahsil Degloor to Primary School at Balegaon, Tal.
Umri for balancing vacancies. It is the case of petitioner that he was
not due for transfer. This Court has already quoted the policy of
Government mentioned in the G.Rs. which enables the authority to
make transfer of the employees who are not due to Tahsil where
there are more vacancies than the average vacancies. Fortunately,
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
he joined the new posting on 4.6.2016. For the reasons already
given in other petition, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged
with no order as to costs.
WRIT PETITION NO. 8133 OF 2016
65) The petitioner is transferred from Chandola, Tahsil
Mukhed to Kalamhed, Tahsil Mahur, which is tribal area. The
petitioner never worked in tribal area in the past. Her husband is
working in Ashram School at Marwadi-Tanda, Tahsil Naigaon which is
a private institution. His post is not transferable. The petitioner did
not join the new posting. For the reasons already given, the petition
is dismissed. Rule is discharged. The petitioner is to pay cost of Rs.
15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 8129 OF 2016
66) The petitioner is transferred from Narsi, Tahsil Naigaon to
Thara, Tahsil Kinwat, a tribal area. It is the case of petitioner that his
wife is working as Assistant Teacher in Tahsil Mukhed and his new
posting is at the distance of 200 k.m. from the place of work of his
wife. He never worked in tribal area in the past. He did not join the
new posting. For the reasons already given in other matters, this
Court holds that interference is not possible. The petition is
dismissed. Rule is discharged. The petitioner is to pay cost of Rs.
15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 8128 OF 2016
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
67) The petitioner is transferred from Dhanaj, Tahsil Mukhed
to Laxminagar, Tahsil Kinwat, a tribal area. It is the case of petitioner
that his wife is working as Assistant Teacher at Manjram, Tahsil
Naigaon and the new posting of the petitioner is situated at the
distance of 235 k.m. from the place of work of his wife and he is not
getting the benefit of couple convenience rule. He never worked in
tribal area. He did not join the new posting. For the reasons already
given in other matters, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
The petitioner is to pay cost of Rs. 15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
GROUP X
WRIT PETITION NO. 9560 OF 2016
68) The petitioner is transferred from Zilla Parishad Primary
School, Datala, Tahsil Kandhar to Zilla Parishad Primary School at
Hardaf, Tahsil Hadgaon. It is the case of petitioner that the seniority
list was not prepared correctly and so, his transfer is illegal. He is
also claiming relief of couple convenience rule. His representation is
rejected. He wants posting near Nanded. The seniority list published
was not challenged. He has contended that some similar
representations were allowed, but his representation is rejected by
the Divisional Commissioner. This Court has gone through the
reasoning given by the Divisional Commissioner for allowing other
representations and facts of those cases were different. The present
matter involves factual aspect also. He is transferred for balancing
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
vacancies. He did not join the new posting. For the reasons already
given, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. The petitioner is
to pay cost of Rs. 15,000/- to Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 9136 OF 2016
69) The petitioner is transferred from Zilla Parishad Central
Primary School, Labour Coloney, Nanded to Vasti Shala, Sakharni
Tanda, Tahsil Kinwat, a tribal area. She is claiming benefit of couple
convenience rule. Her husband is working as Primary Teacher in Zilla
Parishad. Her representation is rejected by the Divisional
Commissioner. She never worked in tribal area. She did not join the
new posting. For the reasons already given, the petition is
dismissed. Rule is discharged. The petitioner is to pay cost of Rs.
15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7809 OF 2016
70) The petitioner is transferred from Zilla Parishad Central
Primary School Mohapur to Zilla Parishad Central Primary School
Daheli Tanda, Tahsil Kinwat. It is the case of petitioner that only
10% employees could have been transferred out of that Tahsil and
so, there could not have been any vacancy for the petitioner in Tahsil
Kinwat, but that policy is not followed and so, the transfer needs to
be cancelled. For the reasons already given, this Court holds that
petition cannot be allowed. He joined new posting on 1.7.2016. It is
his contention that the communication was not made in time with
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
him and in the past also his previous posting was also in Kinwat
Tahsil. It can be said that it is inter Tahsil transfer. He was working at
previous station since 9.4.2010 and he came to be transferred on
5.4.2016. Part III of G.R. dated 15.5.2014 shows that for inter Tahsil
transfer the period of five years is fixed to presume that the
employee has become due for transfer. The G.R. also shows that
minimum 10% of employees need to be transferred compulsorily in
such cases. In view of these circumstances, the submission of the
petitioner that he could not have been transferred from Mohapur
cannot be accepted. However, there is no need to impose the cost on
the petitioner as he is working in tribal area and he wants to work
in tribal area. The petition stand dismissed. Rule is discharged with
no order as to costs.
GROUP XI
WRIT PETITION NO. 10142 OF 2016
71) The petitioner is transferred from Zilla Parishad Primary
School at Mukramabad, Tahsil Mukhed to Zilla Parishad School at
Mandvi, Center Palshi, Tahsil Kinwat, a tribal area. She is challenging
the transfer on the ground that couple convenience rule was not
followed and her husband is working at the distance of 302 k.m.
from the new posting of the petitioner. Her husband is working at
Zilla Parishad School at Ramatpur, Center manur (Bk.), Tahsil
Degloor. She never worked in tribal area. She joined duty on
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
7.6.2016. For the reasons already given in other matters, the
petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
WRIT PETITION NOS. 10143 AND 10144 OF 2016
72) These two petitions are filed by husband and wife. Both
were due for transfer. Husband was working at Markhel, Center Loni,
Tq. Degloor and he is transferred to Malakjamb Tanda, Center
Apparaopeth, Tq. Kinwat, a tribal area. He joined there on 4.6.2016.
Wife was also working at Devangir, Center Loni, Tahsil Degloor and
she is transferred to Shivni, Center Shivani, Tq. Kinwat, a tribal
area. She also joined as per the transfer order. Same Tahsil is given
to them. The contentions involve some factual aspect and those
cannot be considered. For the reasons already given, this Court
holds that petitions need to be dismissed. So the petitions are
dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to cost in both the
petitions.
WRIT PETITION NO. 10145 OF 2016
73) The petitioner is transferred from Markhel, Center Loni,
Tahsil Degloor to Kosmet, Center Kosmet, Tahsil Kinwat, a tribal
area. It appears that petitioner was first transferred to Palshi, Tahsil
Kinwat and then he came to be transferred to Kosmet, Tahsil Kinwat.
He was due for transfer. He never worked in tribal area. It is the
case of petitioner that his father is suffering from epilepsy. On this
ground, the transfer cannot be stopped or cancelled. He joined the
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
new posting in time. In view of the policy given in the aforesaid
G.Rs. and for the reasons given in other matters, the petition is
dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
GROUP XII
WRIT PETITION NO. 6784 OF 2016
74) The petitioner is transferred from Siradhon, Tahsil
Kandhar to Shelu, Center Karanji, Tahsil Mahur, a tribal area. The
petitioner is claiming relief on the ground that couple convenience
policy was not followed and her husband is working at the distance
of 225 k.m. from her new posting. Her husband is working in Rural
Hospital at Warad, Tahsil Mukhed. She never worked in tribal area.
For the reasons already given, the petition is dismissed. Rule is
discharged. As she did not join the new posting, she need to pay
cost of Rs.15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6481 OF 2016
75) The petitioner is transferred from Bolka, Tahsil Kandhar
to Senivarpeth, Center Pradhan Savangi, Tahsil Kinwat, a tribal area.
Her husband is working in Zilla Parishad Primary School at Ghotka,
Center Malegaon, Tahsil Loha. She did not join the new posting
immediately. She never worked in tribal area. For the reasons
already given, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. the
petitioner is to pay cost of Rs.15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
GROUP XIII
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7009 OF 2016
76) The petition is filed by twenty two employees of Class III
cader. Vague contentions are made by them that seniority list was
defective. It is their contention that their transfers are not as per
policy given in the G.R. They have also made contention that the
transfers are in breach of percentage fixed for transferring
employees. It is their contention that hearing was not given as per
the procedure during counselling to them. It is their contention that
due to their transfers, balancing of vacancies is not achieved, but it
is disturbed.
77) As each petitioner can have a separate contention and
each transfer needs to be considered separately, on this ground
itself, the petition could have been dismissed. However, this Court
has considered the proceeding on merits. As six transfers were made
to Kinwat Tahsil, a tribal area, it cannot be said that these transfers
were for balancing vacancies in other Tahsils. As per the policy, to fill
all the vacancies from tribal area, the six transfers were made.
However, remaining transfers were made for balancing vacancies.
78) One more surprising contention is made by the
petitioners that in other districts State Government stayed the
transfers and so, the transfers made in Nanded district need to be
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
stayed. There is nothing to compare the factual aspects and the
reasons behind the staying of the transfers in other districts. Such
matters involve factual aspects. Further, the procedure is laid down
in aforesaid G.Rs. for raising the grievances. It is not the case of
petitioners that they joined the new postings. For the reasons
already given in other proceedings, the petition stands dismissed.
Rule is discharged. Each of the petitioner need to pay cost of
Rs.15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
GROUP XIV
WRIT PETITION NO. 7387 OF 2016
79) The petitioner is a Gramsevak and she is transferred
from Panchayat Samiti Nanded to Panchayat Samiti Naigaon. It is
her case that her husband is working as Gram Vikas Officer at
Nanded and so, as per the couple convenience policy, she is entitled
to get posting at Nanded. It is also her case that she was not due for
transfer as she has completed only eight years of service. Her
transfer is made for balancing the vacancies. In view of these
circumstances, and for the reasons already given, this Court holds
that it is not possible to interfere in the order. She did not join the
new posting. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is
discharged. The petitioner is to pay cost of Rs.15,000/- to the Zilla
Parishad.
GROUP XV
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7565 OF 2016
80) The petitioner wants transfer to Jamb (Bk.), Tahsil
Mukhed, District Nanded from present posting at Herbal, Tahsil
Kandhar on the ground of mutual transfer with one Rajaram More.
She wants direction against respondents to decide the
representation dated 29.4.2016 on the basis of G.R. dated
15.5.2014. It is her case that she is handicapped person. She has
produced the disability certificate issued by the Sub-District Hospital
Mukhed, Nanded. It shows that she has post traumatic sequel at left
lower limb and due to that, there is disability to the extent of 45%.
It is not Handicap Certificate issued by Civil Surgeon. For the
purpose like present one, Handicapped Certificate is required to be
produced. It appears that she had applied for getting Handicap
Certificate before Civil Surgeon on 17.5.2016. Thus, she was not
having Handicap Certificate in the month of April as already
mentioned. Such certificate is required to be produced in the month
of April itself. Further, the petitioner was not due for transfer. The
petitioner had worked at three places like Ladga, Hipparga and
Mukhed in Tahsil Mukhed and the petitioner wants to go to Tahsil
Mukhed again.
81) As per the policy given in aforesaid G.R., the
handicapped employees are exempted from transfer, but they need
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
to file application under that category and further, the procedure
given for getting exemption or for getting request transfer needs to
be followed. For that also, sequence of priority is fixed in the
aforesaid G.R. As the petitioner had not produced certificate in time,
the petitioner can make application along with certificate and this
representation can be considered and decided by the Chief Executive
Officer or the Divisional Commissioner. With that liberty, the petition
is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6745 OF 2016
82) The petitioner is transferred from Bhokar, Tahsil Bhokar
to Ambadi, Tahsil Kinwat, a tribal area. The petitioner is claiming
cancellation of transfer on the ground of couple convenience. Her
husband is working at the distance of 120 k.m. from her new posting
as Zilla Parishad Teacher. She never worked in tribal area. She did
not join the new posting. For the reasons already given, the petition
is dismissed. Rule is discharged. The petitioner is to pay cost of Rs.
15,000/- to the Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6742 OF 2016
83) The petitioner is transferred from Mukhed Tahsil to Navi-
Abadi, Tahsil Mahur, a tribal area. The petitioner is claiming
cancellation of transfer on the ground of couple convenience and by
contending that his wife is working at the distance of 120 k.m. from
his new posting. He never worked in tribal area. He did not join the
WP No. 5984/16 & Ors.
new posting. For the reasons already given, the petition is
dismissed. Rule is discharged. The petitioner is to pay cost of
Rs.15,000/- to Zilla Parishad.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7567 OF 2017
84) The petitioner is transferred from Palaspur, Tahsil
Himayatnagar to Pangari, Center Tamsa, Tahsil Hadgaon. It is the
case of petitioner that choices given by petitioner for transfer were
not considered and he was not present for counselling. The record
shows that on the request of petitioner, the posting is made, but the
petitioner is denying the same. There is copy of representation. Copy
of application for transfer also shows that he wanted transfer at
Mukhed, Loha or Kandhar. If the transfer was not for balancing
vacancies in Hadgaon, his representation can be considered as there
is mention in the record that present transfer was made on request.
As he did not turn up for counselling, this Court holds that at
present, no interference is possible, but he is entitled to make
representation which can be considered if there is mistake
committed of aforesaid nature. In the result, the petition is
dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
ssc/
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!
