Bombay High Court
Indira Dnyan Prasarak Mandal, ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 24 March, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, M. W. Chandwani
936-WP-4608-21 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.4608 OF 2021
1. Indira Dnyan Prasarak Mandal, Neri
Tah. Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur,
Through President
2. Saraswati Kanya Vidyalaya, Neri,
Tah. Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur,
Through its Headmistress
3. Nitesh Natthuji Kamdi,
Age 31 years, Occ. Service,
C/o Saraswati Kanya Vidyalaya,
Neri, Tah. Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur, ... Petitioners
-vs-
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, School Education and
Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur ... Respondents
Ms Radhika Bajaj, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri A. A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATE : March 24, 2023
Oral Judgment (Per : A. S. Chandurkar, J.)
Considering the short issue involved, the writ petition is taken up
for final hearing by issuing Rule and making the same returnable
forthwith.
The petitioner No.3 came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher at
the petitioner No.2 School on 19/11/2013. On account of reduction in
936-WP-4608-21 2/3
number of students, the petitioner No.2 informed the petitioner No.3 that
his services were rendered surplus as on 11/01/2021. According to the
petitioners, the petitioner No.3 continued to serve at the same school till
the issuance of order of transfer dated 07/03/2021. The services of the
petitioner No.3 came to transferred in the school being run by the same
Management for teaching to classes V to VIII. Approval to his transfer
has been rejected by order dated 09/06/2021 which is impugned in this
writ petition. The ground mentioned in the impugned order is that since
the transfer is from primary school section to the secondary school
section, the same is not in accordance with the Government Resolution
dated 01/04/2021.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have
perused affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2. The only reason that
has been mentioned in the impugned order is that transfer of petitioner
No.3 is not on a similar/equivalent post. Our attention has been invited
to the resolution passed by the Management dated 08/03/2021 under
which the services of the petitioner No.3 came to be transferred. The
effort on the part of the petitioners is to indicate that the post of
petitioner No.3 on which he was transferred is a similar post being
equivalent and there is no change in the emoluments being paid to the
petitioner No.3. It is stated that petitioner No.3 is serving at a primary
936-WP-4608-21 3/3
section of the said school after transfer.
3. In aforesaid facts we find that the impugned order dated
09/06/2021 has not taken into consideration the resolution passed by the
Management on 08/03/2021 which indicates that the transfer is on an
equivalent post. That being the only reason for the refusal to approve
the transfer of petitioner No.3, we are inclined to relegate the petitioners
to seek re-consideration of their application by the Education Officer
(Secondary).
4. For aforesaid reasons, the following order is passed :
(i) The order dated 09/06/2021 passed by the Education Officer
(Secondary) is set aside to enable re-consideration of the
petitioners' proposal dated 15/04/2021.
(ii) The petitioners are at liberty to place before the Education
Officer (Secondary) additional documents in support of their
request for grant of approval.
(iii) The Education Officer (Secondary) shall consider the documents
and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners,
take a decision on the said proposal.
(iv) The entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks
from today.
With these directions the writ petition is partly allowed with
no order as to costs.
(M. W. Chandwani, J.) (A. S. Chandurkar, J.)
Asmita
