Bombay High Court
Devendra Gopalrao Ambetkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 28 June, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
1 wp 6791.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6791 OF 2017
1. Sanjay Appasaheb Dhamane
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A. V. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8261 OF 2017
Devendra S/o Gopalrao Ambetkar .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Sandip R. Andhale, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A. V. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE : 28TH JUNE, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.) :-
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned counsel for parties.
2. The petitioners who are assistant primary teachers of Zilla
Parishad, Ahmednagar and who are basically suffering from
2 wp 6791.17
Cervical Spondylisis (Mankyacha Ajar) have filed present writ
petitions and challenged corrigendum dated 17.05.2017 issued by
respondent No. 1, by which the State has deleted/withdrawn the
disease Cervical Spondylisis from Sr. No. 8 of the Government
Resolution dated 27.02.2017. That resulted in deletion of the special
class of teacher Part - I, who are suffering with the said disease.
These teachers thereby treated equally with other teachers for the
transfer purpose.
3. This Court vide judgment dated 22.06.2017 in Writ Petition
No. 6640 of 2017 in Maharashtra Rajya Shikshak Sena,
Through its Taluka President and another Vs. The State
of Maharashtra and others with other connected writ petitions
has dealt with the transfer policy/resolution dated 27.02.2017 and
as amended from time to time including corrigendum dated
17.05.2017 and permitted respondents to proceed on the basis of
resolutions and implement the transfer policy so announced.
4. The State policy is always a domain of State Government, for
various reasons. The withdrawal of unreasoned decision of this
disease from the special class teacher list, just cannot be tested on
a foundation that such withdrawal is unreasonable, arbitrary
and/or without assigning any reasons. The Government while
putting the disease in the list had taken decision on its own based
upon the material so collected. The subsequent amendment,
thereafter, even if, made in no way can be said to be arbitrary,
3 wp 6791.17
discriminatory and/or unreasonable. This in no way can be said to
be violative of constitutional provisions and/or it goes to the root to
the extent of declaring such action/act unsustainable and/or
contrary to any provision of law.
5. We see no case is made out to interfere with said policy
decision taken by the State also for the reason recorded in
judgment referred to (supra).
6. This in no way read and referred that the individual
petitioners are deprived of putting their case and/or representation
after receipt of transfer orders to consider their grievances
revolving around their individual problems based upon the disease.
We have already observed that, in view of the remedy/forum
available, petitioners concerned may make representation and
request to pass appropriate orders, after receipt of the transfer
order. Respondents are required to consider individual cases, in
accordance with law, keeping in mind as already recorded, the
resolutions and/or orders passed by the Court and/or decision taken
by the concerned authority at appropriate time, including the
grievances, if so made, revolving around the disease in question.
7. With these observations, all these petitions are disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.] [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.]
bsb/June 17
