Yogini Avinash Balankhe vs The Maharashtra Pollution ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2145 Bom

                                           1                      W.P.No.4204/17

                                        UNREPORTED

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

                                          BOMBAY

                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.


                               WRIT PETITION NO.4204 OF 2017


          Yogini Avinash Balankhe,
          Age 39 years, Occ.Service
          (as Field Officer, MPCB),
          Sub-Regional Office,Jalna),
          R/o R.H.No.10,Sahyadri Hills,
          Bagadiya Nagar, Shivaji
          Nagar, Aurangabad.            ... Petitioner.


                           Versus

          1. The State of Maharashtra
          Control Board, Mumbai,
          through its Member Secretary,
          Kalpataru Point, 2nd floor,
          Sion-Matunga Scheme Rd.No.8,
          Opp.Sion Circle, Sion(East),
          Mumbai-22.

          2. The Sub-Regional Officer,
          Maharashtra Pollution Control
          Board, Jalna.

          3. The State of Maharashtra,
          through its Secretary,
          General Administration Dept.,
          M.S., Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. ... Respondents.


                                   ...
          Mr.Avinash S.Deshmukh, advocate for the
          petitioner.
          Miss.R.P.Gaur, A.G.P. for the State.
          Mr.U.B.Bondar, advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and
          2.
                                   ...




::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2017                       ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:25:29 :::
                                               2                       W.P.No.4204/17

                                      CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
                                              SANGITRAO S. PATIL,JJ.

                          Reserved on : 12.04.2017
                        Pronounced on : 03.05.2017.


          JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)

1. The petitioner assails the order dated

22.3.2017, issued by Respondent No.1 transferring

the petitioner from Jalna to Ahmednagar.

2. Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that in May 2015, the

petitioner was transferred from Regional Office

Aurangabad to Sub-Regional Office Jalna, pursuant

to the request made by her. The petitioner had

hardly completed tenure of about 21 months on

her post as Field Officer at Jalna and the

petitioner received the impugned order of

transfer. The learned counsel submits that the

said order of transfer is not in consonance with

Circular dated 27.11.1997 and 12.12.2012. The

normal tenure for an employee in a post is three

years. The petitioner has not completed three

years on her post at Jalna. The petitioner was

not due for transfer from the said

place/headquarters. In December 2016, Respondent

No.1 had issued a Circular calling upon the

employees to give their respective options

regarding posting. The petitioner requested for

transfer and posting in the Sub-Regional Office

or in the Regional Office at Aurangabad as the

family of the petitioner is staying at

Auragnabad. According to the learned counsel,

the petitioner requested for transfer at

Aurangabad but the same was not considered and

the petitioner was transferred to Ahmednagar

obtensibly on administrative ground. The request

for mutual transfer was not accepted. The mid-

term tenure transfer is not justifiable and the

same is not for palatable reason. The learned

counsel further submits that at Ahmednagar, where

the petitioner is sought to be transferred, three

Field Officers are already posted and working and

in Jalna there are only two Field Officers

including the petitioner. The learned counsel

submits that on one hand, the petitioner is being

transferred out of Jalna hardly within the tenure

of 21 months. On the other hand, number of other

Field Officers have been continued on their

respective posts inspite of the fact that they

have overlived their respective tenures. Order of

transfer is also a mid-tenure transfer. The

Respondent No.1 has indulged in pick and choose

method causing injustice to the petitioner while

showing undue favour to the others.

3. Learned counsel further submits that

the representation is given by the petitioner

requesting for cancellation of unjustified

transfer. The petitioner has pointed out to the

Respondent No.1 the difficulties faced. The son

of the petitioner is undergoing 10th Board

examination. The inlaws are totally dependent

upon her and her mother has undergone eye

surgery. The son has also to appear in entrance

examination to be conducted by the Services

Preparatory Institute at Auragnabad on 7.5.2017.

The said representation is not considered. The

order of transfer is without application of mind.

Learned counsel further submits that the noting

dated 2.8.2016 in the concerned file states that

at least two Field Officers are required in the

SRO Office at Jalna. As such the contention of

Respondent that the transfer order was issued

considering administrative exigency is erroneous.

Uniform criteria is not being applied. The

petitioner has given specific instances to

substantiate that the Field Officers who have

overlived their tenure are continued. The

transfer order be set aside.

4. Mr.Bondar, learned counsel for the

Respondents submits that the jurisdiction of

Respondent No.1 Board is divided into 12 Regions.

District Jalna is included in Aurangabad Region.

The post on which the petitioner is appointed is

transferable post. In the month of June 2008,

the petitioner was transferred to the Regional

Office at Aurangabad. Since June 2008 to May

2015, the petitioner was posted as Field Officer

in the Regional Office at Aurangabad. In June

2015, upon the request of the petitioner, the

petitioner was posted in the Sub-Regional Office

at Jalna with effect from 5.6.2015. Till date

the petitioner continued there. The Sub-Regional

Office, Jalna falls within Aurangabad Region. For

more than eight years, the petitioner is

continuously posted in Aurangabad Region. In

March 2017, considering the administrative

exigencies, the Respondent No.1 issued order

dated 22.3.2017 for transfer of 27 Field Officers

and one Sub-Regional Officer. The petitioner has

not yet joined. Majority of the other persons

who are transferred have joined. As per para

2(2) of the Circular dated 27.11.1997 and

12.12.2012, it is clear that the transfer of

employee essentially for administrative reasons

should not be made within a period of one year

from the date of posting. The bar of period of

three years does not operate in the case of

transfers for administrative reasons. The

Respondent No.1 Board is the best Judge to

determine the administrative exigency in a

particular region. The Respondent No.1 has not

indulged in pick and choose policy. Mr.Bondar,

learned counsel relies on the order passed by the

Division Bench of this Court at Bombay in

W.P.No.10495/2013 dated 19.11.2013.

5. We have considered the submissions

canvassed by the learned counsel for respective

parties.

          6.               The    Courts         are   normally           loath        in

          interfering with the orders of the transfer.                                The

          Courts would exercise their powers of                              judicial

review in orders of transfer only if it is shown

that the laid down procedure is not followed or

that the transfer is malafide and not for

boanfide reason.

7. It is not disputed that the petitioner

is serving in Aurangabad Region for more than

eight years. In 2015, the petitioner was

transferred to Sub-Regional Office, Jalna at the

request of petitioner. The Sub-Regional

Office,Jalna is a part of Auragnabad Region. It

is also a fact that the petitioner in February

2015, had requested for mutual transfer at

Aurangabad. The petitioner as has continuously

worked in Aurangabad Region for more than eight

years, on administrative ground is transferred at

Ahmednagar. The Circular relied by the

petitioner states that those employees who have

normally worked in one office for three years or

for five years in one Region are liable for

transfer. The petitioner had completed eight

years in Aurangabad Region, as such was

transferred on administrative ground. It would

be seen that the petitioner was transferred from

Aurangabad to Jalna in 2015 at her request and

again in February 2017 had requested for transfer

from Jalna to Aurangabad. Under the impugned

order, the petitioner is transferred from Jalna

to Ahmednagar i.e. to a different Region. The

petitioner had worked for more than eight years

in Auragnabad Region as such was certainly due

for transfer in another Region and the petitioner

herself requested for transfer from Jalna to

Aurangabad. There were about 27 Field Officers

who are transferred under the order dated

22.3.2017. We do not see any malafides on the

part of the Respondents in issuing transfer order

to the petitioner. Normally transfer are to be

effectuated in April/May. The transfer order is

issued on 22.3.2017 and the petitioner has been

given time for joining.

8. Considering aforesaid, the impugned

order of transfer needs no interference.

9. In case the petitioner makes any

representation, it is at the discretion of the

authorities to consider the same.

10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition

is dismissed. No costs.

                               Sd/-                               Sd/-

          (SANGITRAO S. PATIL,J.)                   (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)




          asp/office/wp4204.17