Single judge dismissed a writ petition challenging the illegal transfer of a school principal. The court upheld the administrative decision below and granted a temporary status quo order for two weeks pending the suit.
Status quo to continue for further two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.296 OF2007
Vilasrao Kashinath Deshmukh ..Petitioner.
Vs.
Netaji Subhashchandra Bose Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal, Kasegaon & Anr. ..Respondents.
Mr.Surel S. Shah, adv. for the Petitioner.
Mr.Vaibhav Patankar h/for Mr.Bubla, advs. for the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J.
DATE : AUGUST 24, 2007.
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
2. Perused the impugned orders passed by the
learned IIIrd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division,
Solapur rejecting the application for temporary
injunction filed by the petitioner and the impugned
judgment of Ad-hoc District Judge-7, Solapur dismissing
the appeal against the said order.
3. The petitioner was serving as headmaster and
principal of Adarsha Markandeya Prashala and Shankarrao
Mohite Patil Junior College, Majarewadi, Solapur run by
the respondents. He was transferred from Majarewadi to
Barrister Babasaheb Bhosale Prashala, Kasegaon as per
the order dated 1-4-2006 passed by the respondent no.2.
:2:
Contending that the said order of transfer was illegal,
malafide and just to harass him, the petitioner filed a
suit seeking perpetual injunction. In the suit he also
filed an application for temporary injunction
restraining the respondents from transferring him from
Majarewadi to Kasegaon. The application for temporary
injunction was rejected. His appeal was also
dismissed. The District Judge, Solapur has mentioned
in detail the documents relied upon by the respondents
to show that the petitioner was not complying with the
legitimate directions issued by the management. Record
reveals that he had not complied with the directives
given by the management and he was transferred on
administrative ground. After going through the
impugned orders, I find that two Courts below have
given concurrent findings that he was transferred on
administrative ground, therefore, it is not desirable
for the Court to interfere in the administrative
decision of the management. After going through the
said record, I do not find that it is a fit case to
interfere in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
4. Petition stands dismissed summarily. However, I
make it clear that any observations made by the two
Courts below or by this Court in the present order
shall not be taken into consideration while deciding
:3:
the suit filed by the petitioner and it should be
decided on its own merits. On request made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, status-quo to
continue for further two weeks.
[J.H.BHATIA, J.]
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the administrative decision of school management regarding the petitioner's transfer.
Whether the petition under Article 227 is a fit case for interference.
Whether the suit filed by the petitioner should be curtailed by the observations in this writ order.
Vilasrao Kashinath Deshmukh
Netaji Subhashchandra Bose Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
J.H.BHATIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court