Dismissed

Sagirunnisa Syed Dawood v. the Zilla Parishad Beed Thr CEO and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jun 2009WP/764/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a teacher on the verge of retirement, challenged her transfer order causing her to become surplus. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that disputed facts regarding her attendance and refusal of subsequent postings were not within writ jurisdiction, though it directed the education officer to issue suitable posting orders.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed; the petitioner is directed to report to join duties at the school at Kuran Pimpri or contact the Education Officer for a suitable posting order.

Sagirunnisa Syed Dawood Vs the Zilla Parishad… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 764 OF 2009

¶5

Smt.Sagirunnisa Syed Dawood, Age 55 years, Occu.Household and Service; presently serving as Primary Teacher, Z.P.School, Neknoor, Taluka and Dist.Beed, R/o House No.1-7-950, Shahensha Nagar, Beed, Taluka and District Beed. .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Zilla Parishad, Beed, through its Chief Executive Officer, District Beed

¶8

The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed, Taluka and Dist.Beed

¶9

The Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samitee, Georai, Taluka Georai, Dist.Beed

¶10

The Head Master, Zilla Parishad Primary School, (Bhat Antarwali) C.P.S.C.Girls School, Umapur, Taluka Georai, District Beed

¶11

The Head Master, Zilla Parishad Prathamik Shala, Primary Urdu Girls, C.P.S.C., Neknur, Taluka and District Beed .. Respondents

¶12

Mr.Abdul Aziz, Advocate for petitioner Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.K.G.Patil, AGP for respondent No.3

¶13

¶14

CORAM: P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ

¶15

DATE: 18TH JUNE, 2009

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per P.V.HARDAS , J]

¶17

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶18

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ for quashing the order dated 23.5.2008 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed transferring the petitioner from Girls’ Urdu Primary School, Neknoor to the Primary School, Bhat Antarwali, Taluka Georai.

¶19

According to the petitioner, the petitioner was on the verge of retirement when she was served with the transfer order. Perusal of the transfer order reveals that the petitioner was rendered surplus and as a result of absorption of the petitioner, the petitioner was transferred from the school at Neknoor to the Primary School at Bhat Antarwali. According to the petitioner, petitioner reported to the duty and was granted joining period and thereafter joined the duties at the Primary School at Bhat Antarwali on 23.6.2008. According to the petitioner, petitioner was not allowed to join at Bhat Antarwali and thereafter the petitioner who came to be posted at school at Kuran Pimpri also was not allowed to join as the said post was filled.

¶20

¶21

On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply. In the affidavit-in-reply, the respondents have pointed out that the petitioner when served with the order of transfer which is impugned in the present petition, did not join the place of posting at Bhat Antarwali till 23.6.2008. On account of the fact that the education of the students of the school was jeopardized on account of the absence of the petitioner, the respondents were required to appoint another teacher at the Primary School at Bhat Antarwali. The petitioner thereafter was given the posting order at Primary School at Kuran Pimpri which the petitioner refused to accept. According to respondents, the petitioner had remained absent and had sent medical leave application through post without joining the place of posting. The affidavit-in-reply further reveals that several show cause notices have been issued to the petitioner and action in accordance with law is contemplated.

¶22

Since the petitioner was rendered surplus and in order to absorb the petitioner, the petitioner was posted at Bhat Antarwali, we are not inclined to interfere in the petition as the questions as to whether the petitioner had reported for duty and had been granted joining period and whether the petitioner had joined on 23.6.2008 are all matters which cannot be determined in the exercise of writ jurisdiction as they are disputed questions of facts. Similarly, the question whether the petitioner when had gone at the school at Kuran Pimpri and was not allowed to join cannot be adjudicated and decided in this writ petition. The petitioner

¶23

¶24

apparently has not been paid the salary, as according to the respondents the petitioner had not joined the place of posting.

¶25

However, in order to alleviate the suffering of the petitioner, which may have been brought upon herself by her conduct, we direct the petitioner to report to join the duties at the school at Kuran Pimpri and in case some other teacher has been appointed there, the petitioner to report to the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed i.e. Respondent No.2 who shall by taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had been rendered surplus and issue suitable orders of posting. We make it clear to the petitioner that the petitioner should not refuse to accept the said place of posting and in her own interest join at the place of posting. In respect of question of salary etc., the petitioner may make suitable representation to the authorities which the authorities should consider in accordance with law.

¶26

Thus, we see no merits in the petition and the same is dismissed with the aforesaid directions to the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

¶27

[ R.K.DESHPANDE ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

(vvr/764.09wp)

¶29

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO.764 OF 2009

¶31

 Date of decision 18TH JUNE 2009

¶32

 For approval and signature.

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE P.V. HARDAS

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE R.K.DESHPANDE

¶35

`1.`	`Whether Reporters of Local Papers` `may be allowed to see the judgment?`	`}` `} Yes.`
`2.`	`To be referred to the Reorter or not?`	`} Yes/No`
`3.`	`Whether Their Lordships wish to see` `the fair copy of the judgment?`	`} No.`
`4.`	`Whether this case involves a substantial` `question of law as to the interpretation` `of the Constitution of India, 1950 or` `any Order made thereunder?`	`}` `}` `}` `} No.`
`5.`	`Whether it is to be circulated to the` `Civil Judges?`	`}` `} No.`
`6.`	`Whether the case involves an important` `question of law and whether a copy of` `the judgment should be sent to Mumbai,` `Nagpur and Panaji offices?`	`}` `}` `}` `} No.`

¶36

[ V.V.RASAL]

¶37

¶38

 Personal Assistant to
 the Honourable Judge.

Sagirunnisa Syed Dawood v. the Zilla Parishad Beed Thr CEO and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagirunnisa Syed Dawood v. the Zilla Parishad Beed Thr CEO and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Secretary PWD Mumbai and Ors. Vs Haribhau Laxman Ghodke

Sanjay Bhimshankar Mangule and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sandipan Vaijinathrao Gitte and Ors. Vs Maharashtra Rajya Apprentice Kruti Samiti and Ors.

Niranjan Prakash Pande and Anr. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Lal Mohammad Jafarmiya Jahagirdar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Madhav Hasanna Pandalvar Vs the State of Mah