Gangadhar Krushanaji Tathe vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7000 Bom

                                        {1}
                                                                 wp 1012.17.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO.1012 OF 2017



 Gangadhar s/o Krushanaji Tathe
 Age: 45 years, occu: service,
 R/o C/o Zilla Parishad
 Central Primary School,
 Pandharpur, tq. & Dist. Aurangabad                              Petitioner


          Versus


 1        The State of Maharashtra,
          through its Secretary
          Rural Development Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai 32


 2        The Divisional Commissioner,
          Division, Aurangabad


 3        The Chief Executive Officer
          Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad


 4        The Education Officer (Primary)
          Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad


 5        Prakash s/o Raghunath Dane
          Age: major, occu: service,
          R/o Zilla Parishad Primary School,
          Ghardon, tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.              Respondents

{2} wp 1012.17.odt

Mr. S.R. Kedar advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.B. Yawalkar Assistant Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1 Mr. P.S. Pawar h/f Mr. R.S. Bihani advocate for respondent No.5 _______________

CORAM : R. M. BORDE & VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ

(Date: September 11th, 2017)

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: R.M. Borde, J)

1 Heard respective counsel appearing for the parties.

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up

for final disposal at admission stage.

3 The petitioner, who was serving as a Teacher at village

Pimpri Raja has been transferred and posted at village

Pandharpur by order dated 3.6.2016 passed by the Block

Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Aurangabad. The

transfer has been effected on administrative grounds.

4 The respondent No.5 herein tendered an application to the

Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad requesting him to cancel

the order of transfer issued to him on 17.6.2016. Respondent

No.5 was functioning as a teacher in Zilha Parishad Central

Primary School, Pimpri Raja and was directed to report at village

Ghardon, Kachner. It is contended by respondent No.5 that, since

{3} wp 1012.17.odt

he is the office bearer of the teachers organization, in view of the

Government Resolution dated 15.5.2014, he may be posted at

Taluka Place or at the District Head Quarters. Respondent No.5

requested the Divisional Commissioner to direct cancellation of

the order of transfer and permit him to report at Central Primary

School, Pandharpur. The petitioner has objected to the order

passed by the Divisional Commissioner on 27.12.2016, accepting

the request made by respondent No.5. Since the petitioner was

posted at Padharpur, as a consequence of cancellation of the

order of transfer issued to respondent No.5, respondent No.5

returned back to village Pandharpur and as such, the order of

transfer issued to the petitioner was required to be cancelled and

same was accordingly withdrawn.

5 This Court, while directing issuance of notice on 20.1.2017,

directed the parties to maintain status-quo. It is informed that in

view of the order directing maintenance of status-quo, the

petitioner is retained at village Pandharpur, where respondent

No.5 is serving at primary school at Ghardon in observance of

the order of transfer dated 17.6.2016.

6 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states, on

instructions that, the impugned order dated 27.12.2016 has been

issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, without

{4} wp 1012.17.odt

extending an opportunity of hearing and deserves to be quashed

and set aside. Since the impugned order dated 27.12.2016 has

an impact on the order of transfer issued in favour of the

petitioner and since he is affected person, it was necessary for

the Divisional Commissioner to extend an opportunity of hearing

to him.

7 We are convinced that, since the order issued by the

Divisional commissioner on 27.12.2016, affects the entitlement

of the petitioner to continue on the transfered post at

Pandharpur and adversely affects his interest, he ought to have

been extended an opportunity of hearing. Since the order has

been issued without observance of the principles of natural

justice, the impugned order issued by the Divisional

Commissioner on 27.12.2016 deserves to be quashed and set

aside and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside.

8 The Divisional Commissioner shall extend opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 and shall

proceed to take appropriate decision on the

representation/applications tendered by respondent No.5 on

10.6.2016 and 14.9.2016 as expeditiously as possible and

preferably within a period of two months from today and it is

accordingly directed.

{5} wp 1012.17.odt

9 Both the parties shall appear before the Divisional

Commissioner on 26.9.2017 and as such no separate notice,

requiring their presence before the Divisional Commissioner shall

be necessary.

 10       Rule is accordingly made absolute.


 11       There shall be no order as to costs.




       ( VIBHA KANKANWADI, J)                             (R. M. BORDE, J)




 vbd