Dattatraya Lalji Chormale vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3824 Bom

                                                                                         911_WP826917.odt


         
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 8269 OF 2017

Dattatraya Lalji Chormale
Age: 42 years, Occu.: Service as
Assistant Teacher at Primary School,
Ghanewadi, Tq. & Dist. Jalna,
R/o Income-Tax Colony, Near A to Z School,
Old Jalna, Dist. Jalna.                                                ..PETITIONER

               VERSUS

1.  State of Maharashtra
     Through the Secretary,
     Rural Development & Water
     Conservation Department,
     Mantralaya, Mumba - 32.

2.  The Chief Executive Officer,
     Zilla Parishad, Jalna.                                            ..RESPONDENTS

                                                      ....

Mr. S.D. Joshi, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. M.B. Bharaswadkar, A.G.P. for respondent - State.

....

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA & SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ DATED : 30th JUNE, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.):

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of

the parties.

1 / 3

911_WP826917.odt

2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner. Petitioner by this petition

challenging the action of Respondent No.1 whereby as stated the claim of

petitioner for inter-district transfer not considered and the case of junior

employee for inter-district transfer has been considered. Petitioner though made

representation, not taken note of and therefore submission is also made that

petitioner's case is not covered by Writ Petition No. 6640 of 2017 (Maharashtra

Rajya Shikshak Sena and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others).

3. After considering the submission so made and so raised, the fact

remains that petitioner is Assistant Teacher working in Zilla Parishad, Jalna.

Based upon policy decision so declared by Government Resolution dated 27 th

February, 2017 and as amended from time to time, petitioner has also applied

online for inter-district transfer. Respondent No.1 - State Government, in view

of this based upon the policy decision so taken require to consider the individual

case after considering the transfer policy and even observed that after receipt of

transfer order, petitioner is entitled to agitate the issue by representation/appeal

before the Divisional Commissioner who is also the authority who can deal with

such issue of inter-district transfer. The authority is required to consider

individual cases and if necessary by reconsidering the transfer order, if passed,

but within the policy resolution.

2 / 3

911_WP826917.odt

4. Therefore, by keeping all points open, present petition is disposed of

with liberty to approach to the Divisional Commissioner after the receipt of the

transfer order. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly. No costs.

           ( SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J. )                     ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. )
SSD




                                       3   /  3