Bombay High Court
Shrikant Ramdas Karkale vs The State Of Maharashtra Throu. The ... on 25 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:40671-DB JUDGMENT IN WP 11520-25--.DOC
Priya Soparkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11520 OF 2025
Shrikant Ramdas Karkale,
Age :42 years, Occ: Service,
Joint Commissioner (Food)-cum-
Adjudicating Officer, Office of the
Joint Commissioner (Konkan Division)
Food and Drugs Administration
(Maharashtra State), Vardan MIDC
Building, Lower Ground Floor,
Road No.16, Wagale Estate,
Thane (West)-400604.
...Petitioner
~ versus ~
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Principal Secretary,
Medical Education and Drugs
Department, G.T. Hospital Complex,
9th Floor, Lokmanya Tilak Marg,
New Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400001.
2. Mahesh Namdeo Chaudhary, ...Respondents
Age: 57 years, Occ: Govt. Servant,
Residing at Flat No.3/303,
Wimbledon Park,
Opp. Singhani School,
Pokhran Road No.1,
Thane (West), Thane 400606.
Digitally
signed by
PRIYA
PRIYA RAJESH
SOPARKAR
RAJESH
SOPARKAR Date:
2025.09.25
Page 1 of 10
16:27:40
+0530
th
25 September, 2025.
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 01:44:26 :::
JUDGMENT IN WP 11520-25--.DOC
A PPEARANCES
For the Petitioner Mr. Vivek Vijay Salunke
For Respondent No. 1- State Mr. N. C. Walimbe, Addl. GP with
Ms. Rupali M. Shinde, AGP
For Respondent No. 2. Ms. Pushpa Ganediwala with Ms.
Anshu Agrawal, Mr. Ankit
Rathod, Mr. Pradyumna
Agrawal i/by M/s Pushpa
Ganediwada & Co.
CORAM : SUMAN SHYAM &
MANJUSHA
DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT (Per Suman Shyam, J):
-
1. In this Writ Petition the judgment and order dated 18 th July,
2025 passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
(MAT) Mumbai in Original Application (OA) No.1370 of 2024
instituted by the Respondent No.2 herein as Original Applicant, has
been put under challenge by contending that the impugned order
suffers from serious legal infirmities warranting interference by
this Court.
2. The facts of the case, as apparent from the record, in a
nutshell, are that pursuant to the recommendation dated 21 st
August, 2024 made by the Civil Service Board (CSB), the Writ
th
25 September, 2025.
JUDGMENT IN WP 11520-25--.DOC
Petitioner herein along with the Respondent No.2 and other
eligible departmental candidates were promoted to the post of
"Joint Commissioner (Food)-cum-Adjudication Officer, Group-A".
The CSB had also recommended that Pursuant to their promotion,
the Respondent No.2 be posted at Thane and the Writ Petitioner at
Amaravati. It appears that such recommendations were made by
CSB by taking note of the options exercised by the respective
candidates. However, the recommendation of CSB was overruled
by the Departmental Minister i.e. the Minister-in-charge of Medical
Education and Drugs Department and by issuing the impugned
order dated 9th October, 2024 by means of which, the Writ
Petitioner was posted at Thane and the Respondent No.2/Original
Applicant at Nashik. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent No 2 as
applicant had preferred O.A. No 1370 of 2024 which was allowed
by the learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order
dated 18th July, 2025, thus interfering with the order dated 9 th
October, 2024 in so far as the same seeks to override the
recommendations made by the CSB in its meeting held on 19 th
August, 2024 assigning places of posting to the promotee Officer.
The learned MAT was of the view that no reason whatsoever, has
been furnished by the Hon'ble Minister-in-charge of the
Department for overruling the recommendations of the CSB. As
such, the impugned order dated 9th October, 2024 was un-
sustainable in law.
3. By placing reliance on the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of T.S.R. Subramanian and ors. Vs. Union of India
th
25 September, 2025.
JUDGMENT IN WP 11520-25--.DOC
and ors.1 as well as the Government Resolution (GR) issued by the
State of Maharashtra dated 31st January, 2024 embodying the
administrative instructions issued in conformity with the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of T.S.R. Subramanian and ors.
Vs. Union of India and ors. (supra), the learned MAT has held that
although the Departmental Minister has wide powers in these
matters including the power to disagree with the recommendation
of the CSB yet, in case of disagreement with recommendations of
the CSB, proper reasons must be recorded by the Minister. In the
absence of reasons recorded, the decision of the Departmental
Minister, to override the recommendation of the CSB, was not
permissible in law. It was, therefore, held that the impugned order
of posting dated 9th October, 2024 was vitiated by complete
arbitrariness. The OA filed by the Respondent No.2 was thus,
allowed by the learned MAT with the following order and
direction:-
" ORDER
(A) The O.A. No.1370/2024 is Allowed.
(B) The 'Medical Education and Drugs
Department' directed to concurrently transfer
Applicant to post of 'Joint Commissioner, Food-
cum-Adjudicating Officer' at 'Thane' in place of
Respondent No.2 and in turn Respondent No.2
in place of Applicant to post of 'Joint
Commissioner, Food-cum-Adjudicating Officer'
at 'Nashik' within period of next 'Two Weeks'.
(C) No order as to costs."
1 (2013)15 SCC 732
th
25 September, 2025.
JUDGMENT IN WP 11520-25--.DOC
4. Assailing the judgment and order dated 18 th July, 2025
passed by the Learned Tribunal, the learned counsel for the
Writ Petitioner submits that this is not a case of routine
transfer but posting on promotions. Therefore, neither the
law laid down in the case of T.S.R. Subramanian and Ors.
Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) nor the mandate of GR
dated 31st January, 2024 would be applicable in this case. By
referring to GR dated 29th April, 2025, Mr. Vivek Vijay
Salunke, learned counsel for the Petitioner has further
argued that in matters of transfer, the Departmental Minister
has wide range of power including the power to override the
recommendations made by the CSB. In the present case,
submits Mr. Salunke, since the power exercised by the
Departmental Minister is in accordance with GR dated 29 th
April, 2025 and the same has also received the approval of
the Hon'ble Chief Minister, who is the appointing authority
in this case, no interference with the impugned order dated
9th October, 2024 was called for by the learned MAT.
5. Responding to the above submission, Ms. Pushpa
Ganediwala, learned counsel for the Original Applicant/
Respondent No.2 has argued that her client is senior to the
Writ Petitioner and he is also on the verge of his retirement.
Moreover, Thane is his home district. As such, prior to his
retirement, he was entitled to posting at his home district/
town. According to Ms. Ganediwala, taking into
consideration all such relevant factors, the CSB had
recommended the posting of the Respondent No.2/Original
Applicant at Thane. Therefore, unless cogent reasons are
th
25 September, 2025.
JUDGMENT IN WP 11520-25--.DOC
shown, it would not be permissible for the Departmental
Minister to override the recommendations of the CSB. In
support of her above arguments, apart from relying on the
decision of the T.S.R. Subramanian and ors. Vs. Union of
India and ors. (supra) Ms. Ganediwala has also placed heavy
reliance on a decision of this Court rendered by a Co-
ordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.15400 of 2024 (Krishna
Babaji Bhavar Vs. The Union of India and ors.) to submit
that even if the competent authority wants to reject the
recommendations of the CSB, it will be obliged to record
reasons for doing so which has not been done in the present
case. Therefore, the learned MAT has rightly interfered with
the impugned transfer order.
6. The learned AGP has supported the original transfer
order dated 9th October, 2024 and submits that the Chief
Minister of the State being the next Superior Transferring
Authority under the 'Maharashtra Government Service
Regulation of Transfer and Prevention of Delay in Discharge
of Official Duties Act, 2005 and also the appointing
authority, the order of posting having received his approval,
there was no scope for the learned MAT to interfere with the
order merely on the ground that no reasons were furnished
by the Departmental Minister.
7. We have considered the submission made at the Bar
and have also gone through the materials available on
record.
th
25 September, 2025.
JUDGMENT IN WP 11520-25--.DOC
8. There is no controversy about the fact that the decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of T.S.R. Subramanian and ors. Vs.
Union of India and ors. (supra) lays down in unequivocal terms
that in all service matters including matters of transfer posting and
disciplinary action the recommendations of the CSB can be
overruled by the political executives but by recording reasons for
doing so. It has been held that such recourse is necessary for
fairness, transparency, actionable and good governance. The
observations made in paragraphs 33 and 34 are relevant for this
case and are, therefore, being re-produced here-in-below :-
" 33. CSB, consisting of high-ranking in-service
officers, who are experts in their respective fields, with
the Cabinet Secretary at the Centre and Chief Secretary
at the Sate level, could be a better alternative (till
Parliament enacts a law), to guide and advise the State
Government on all service matters, especially on
transfers, postings and disciplinary action, etc., though
their views also could be overruled, by the political
executive, but by recording reasons, which would
ensure good governance, transparency and
accountability in governmental functions. Parliament
can also under Article 309 of the Constitution enact a
Civil Service Act, setting up a CSB, which can guide
and advise the political executive transfer and
postings, disciplinary action, etc. CSB consisting of
experts in various fields like administration,
management, science, technology, could bring in more
professionalism, expertise and efficiency in
governmental functioning.
34. We, therefore, direct the Centre, State
Governments and the Union Territories to constitute
such Boards with high-ranking serving officers, who
are specialists in their respective fields, within a period
of three months, if not already constituted, till
Parliament brings in a proper legislation in setting up
CSB."
th
25 September, 2025.
JUDGMENT IN WP 11520-25--.DOC
9. Taking note of the directions issued in the decision of the
T.S.R. Subramanian and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors. (supra),
the State of Maharashtra had issued GR dated 21st April, 2015 a
CSB was established to recommend posting and transfer of Officers
in Group-A and B cadres of Food & Drugs Administration, State of
Maharashtra. The matter of assigning posting to the promotee
Officers was also placed before the said CSB which had made its
recommendations of the places of posting of the Officers pursuant
to their promotion. However, as noted above, such
recommendations of the CSB was over-ruled by the Departmental
Minister, without, however, recording any reason.
10. There is no dispute about the fact that the Minister-In-Charge
would have the authority and jurisdiction to over-rule the
recommendations of the CSB. The question herein is not as to
whether, the Minster-in-charge had the power to override the
decision of the CSB but whether, the same could be done without
recording any reason for doing so. From a careful scrutiny of the
material available on record, we do not find any reason recorded
by the Hon'ble Minister-in-charge for overruling the
recommendations of the CSB. If that be so, such an order, in our
view, would be patently violative by the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of T.S.R. Subramanian and ors. Vs.
Union of India and ors. (supra) as well as the GR issued by the
Government dated 21st April, 2015.
11. In the case of Krishna Babaji Bhavar Vs. The Union of India
and ors. (supra), this Court, while dealing with an issue of similar
nature, had made the following observations in paragraph No.38 :-
th
25 September, 2025.
JUDGMENT IN WP 11520-25--.DOC
"38. However, irrespective of the application of
the State Act or the Central Provisions, none of the
parties disputed those transfers had to be made on
the recommendations of the Civil Services Board.
The competent authority may disagree with the
recommendations, but the competent authority
would be obliged to record reasons for the
disagreement. This means that there is no question
of the competent authority directly transferring any
Indian Forest Service Officers of the Maharashtra
Cadre without there being a recommendation of the
Civil Service Board. The recommendation may not
bind the competent authority. Still, in the absence of
the Board first considering the transfer issue, there
was no question of the competent authority directly
transferring an Indian Forest Service Officer of the
Maharashtra Cadre."
12. The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner has tried to
impress upon us by arguing that the GR dated 21 st April, 2015
would not be applicable in the case of transfer / postings made on
promotion. However, on a careful reading of the relevant GR, we
find that the same is applicable in the case of Transfer as well as
posting. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the submissions of
the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the GR is not
applicable in case of postings.
13. By referring to a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the learned MAT has held that recording of reasons is
necessary so as to eliminate arbitrariness in exercise of
administrative powers by the Public Authority and that, in exercise
of the power of judicial review, the Writ Court will not go into the
merit of the decision but would only examine the decision making
process. Since, the decision/ recommendation of the CSB was over-
th
25 September, 2025.
JUDGMENT IN WP 11520-25--.DOC
ruled without recording any reason, hence, the impugned order
dated 09.10.2024 was interfered with. Having regards to the facts
and circumstances of the case we do not find any justifiable ground
to take a different view in the matter. Rather, in view of the ratio
laid down in the case of T.S.R. Subramanian and ors. Vs. Union of
India and ors. (supra) as well as Krishna Babaji Bhavar Vs. The
Union of India and ors. (supra), we are of the view that the order
of the Departmental Minister overriding the recommendations CSB
would be unsustainable in law unless the same is based on proper
reasons.
14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any good
ground to interfere with the order of the learned MAT. The Writ
Petition is, therefore, held to be devoid of any merit and the same
is accordingly dismissed. However, since the impugned order dated
9th October, 2024 has been interfered with on the technical ground
of procedural violation, we make it clear that notwithstanding this
order, it will be open for the Hon'ble Minister-in-charge of Medical
Education and Drugs Department to pass fresh order in the matter,
if any, by furnishing proper reason, within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, if so
advised.
15. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands
disposed of.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
{
th
25 September, 2025.
