Bombay High Court
Subhedar Ramji Ambedkar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 9 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp6647.13.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6647/2013
PETITIONER : Subhedar Ramji Ambedkar Education
Society, through its Secretary,
Lokeshwar Daduramji Sawai, aged 43 years,
Office at Master Colony, Savangi (Meghe)
Road, Wardha, Distt. Wardha.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary Department of Social Welfare,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Commissioner of Social Welfare,
State of Maharashtra, Central Building,
Pune - 1.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare,
Yeotmal.
4. The Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare,
Wardha.
5. The Divisional Commissioner, Social Welfare,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
6. The Divisional Commissioner, Social Welfare,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
7. Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur
University, Nagpur Through its Registrar,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
8. Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University,
Amravati through its Registrar, University
Campus, Amravati.
(Amended as per Hon'ble Court's order
dt. 09.07.2014)
::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2017 00:05:10 :::
wp6647.13.odt
2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 09.06.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of
the Commissioner of Social Welfare disapproving the action on the part of
the petitioner of transferring the teachers from one Social Welfare College
to the other, both run by the petitioner - Education Society.
Admittedly, the petitioner is a minority institution and runs
two Social Welfare Colleges, one at Wardha and the other at Yavatmal.
The petitioner effected the transfer of three teachers from the College at
Wardha to the college at Yavatmal and two teachers were transferred
from Yavatmal to Wardha. After the transfer was effected by the
petitioner on 3.6.2013, the transferred teachers joined at the respective
places to which they were transferred. Though the teachers did not have
any grievance about their transfers, the Commissioner of Social Welfare
issued the impugned orders directing the petitioner to cancel their
transfer orders and to retain the teachers on their original places of
postings. The action on the part of the Commissioner of Social Welfare is
wp6647.13.odt
impugned in the instant petition.
In the circumstances of the case, we find that the
Commissioner of Social Welfare could not have directed the petitioner to
cancel the transfer orders of these employees. Admittedly, the petitioner
has gained minority status and the Commissioner of Social Welfare could
not have insisted for seeking his approval before transferring the teachers
from one Social Welfare College to the other, specially when the teachers
did not have any grievance about their transfer and joined at the places to
which they were transferred immediately after the transfer was effected in
June, 2013. For more than four years, the teachers have been working in
the Colleges to which they were transferred. This Court had stayed the
order of the Commissioner of Social Welfare while admitting the writ
petition and hence, the teachers are working at Yavatmal and Wardha in
pursuance of the transfer orders effected by the petitioner on 3.6.2013.
Since the petitioner is a minority institution the objection pertaining to
the reservation policy, could not have been raised. Since the reservation
policy is not applicable to the minority institutions, the Commissioner of
Social Welfare was not justified in directing the petitioner to cancel the
transfers of the teachers on the said ground. It would be worthwhile to
refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (2010)
8 SCC 49 in this regard. In any case, since the teachers are working at the
wp6647.13.odt
places to which they were transferred for more than four years, it would
not be proper to consider whether the transfer of the teachers could have
been effected by the petitioner.
In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in
the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
