Dismissed

Nisar Ahmed Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Dec 2008WP/6791/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a teacher's transfer. The court held that General Rules are guidelines without enforceability and there was no violation since the petitioner completed ten years in the original taluka. The petitioner was directed to be posted immediately.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as misconceived; the respondents were directed to post the petitioner immediately.

Nisar Ahmed Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6791 OF 2008

¶3

 Shri Nisar Ahmed Shaikh ...Petitioner.
 V/s.

¶4

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶5

 Mr.Pramod Kathane , adv. for the Petitioner.

¶6

 Mr.V.S.Masurkar , GP for the Respondent Nos.1,2 and 6.

¶7

 Mr.M.B.Mehere, adv. for the respondent nos.3 to 5.

¶8

 CORAM: Bilal Nazki&
J.H.Bhatia,JJ.
 DATE : 10th December, 2008.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

 1. Petitioner has been transferred from Taluka:Vai to

¶11

 Taluka:Mahad after having served in Taluka: Vai for ten

¶12

 years. He challenges the order dated 31st May, 2008 on the
 ground that it is violative of G.R. dated 25th April,
 2005, which according to him lays down that the list of
 teachers should be prepared and all those persons, who
 completed three years would be eligible for transfer on the
 administrative ground within the jurisdiction of the Zilla

¶13

 Parishad. Since nobody else has been considered for
 transfer and he alone has been considered, therefore, his
 transfer is bad. Transfer is exigency of service and the
 G.R., to which reference has been made, provides only
 guide-lines to the respondents so that they keep in mind

¶14

 : 2 :

¶15

 while ordering transfers. They do not have enforceability.

¶16

 The G.R. further lays down that the person, who has put in

¶17

 ten years of service in one Taluka can be considered for
 transfer to another Taluka. Petitioner has completed 10
 years in Vai Taluka and, therefore, we do not find that
 there is violation of G.R. Petition is misconceived.
 Petitioner submits that although he challenges his
 transfer, he has joined in terms of the transfer order at
 new Taluka but has not been given order of posting.
 Respondents are directed to post him immediately, if not
 posted.

¶18

(Bilal Nazki, J.)

¶19

(J.H.Bhatia, J.)

Nisar Ahmed Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisar Ahmed Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandlal Kacharu Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Abhishek Prabhakar Nikam and Anr. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Nandlal Kacharu Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Namdeo Murlidhar Pingale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhagwati Sharma Vs Meera Bhayandar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Suhas Govind Shrigondekar Vs the State of Maharashtra -through Secretary Co-Operation Department and Anr.