Dismissed

Mr. Ankush Namdev Mane v. the Chief Executive Officer, Zill Parishad and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Apr 2016WP/4381/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judges dismissed writ petitions filed by primary teachers seeking inter-district transfers to Sangli Zilla Parishad. The court observed that the Zilla Parishad's preference for pending applications prior to the circular amendment was in consonance with the circular and purposive interpretation. However, the court directed that the proposed transfer of one teacher with a 2013 application be exclude

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed with modification directing that the transfer of applicant Krishnadev Pinjari shall not be given effect to.

Mr. Ankush Namdev Mane Vs the Chief Executive Officer… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 906-WP-3297-338-3296-4381.2016.sxw

¶2

hvn

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3297 OF 2015

¶6

Mr. Hajare Ravso Ramchandra … Petitioner Versus The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli … Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 338 OF 2016

¶9

Mr. Bharat Ravasaheb Shejal … Petitioner Versus The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli … Respondents

¶10

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4381 OF 2016

¶11

Mr. Ankush Namdev Mane … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents

¶12

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3296 OF 2015

¶13

Mr. Padulkar Kakaso Ishwara … Petitioner Versus The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,Sangli … Respondents

¶14

Ms. S.S. Pakale a/w Mr. A.R. Belge for the petitioner in WP No. 3296/2015, WP No. 338/2016 and WP No. 3297/2015.

¶15

Mr. R.D. Rane for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶16

Mr. Asif Patel, AGP for respondent No. 4.

¶17

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & RANJIT MORE, JJ. DATED : APRIL 22, 2016.

¶18

2 906-WP-3297-338-3296-4381.2016.sxw

¶19

P.C.

¶20

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and the learned AGP for the State.

¶22

Petitioners who are primary teachers are seeking their inter-district transfer to Sangali Zilla Parishad. Petitioners admittedly belong to the category of NT-C. They are claiming their transfer as per Government Circular dated 29.09.2011 (Annexure “F”) as amended vide amendment dated 18.10.2012 (Annexure “G”). According to the petitioners, State Government and the Zilla Parishad, Sangli have misinterpreted the amendment to the circular and have wrongly given preference to those teachers whose applications were pending prior to the coming into force the circular dated 29.9.2011.

¶23

Admittedly, the said circular is not under challenge in

¶24

3 906-WP-3297-338-3296-4381.2016.sxw

¶25

any of the petitions. We have gone through the chart prepared by Sangli Zilla Parishad in regard to the proposed transfers. We have also gone through the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government and Zilla Parishad stating therein that there are 46 vacancies in the category of NT-C and in terms of the amendment made to the said circular, 37 applications were prior to the issuance of the circular. However, during the course of hearing, it is revealed that last person namely Krishnadev Pinjari has wrongly been added in the said list of persons who are found to be eligible for transfer. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that as the application of Krishnadev Pinjari is of the year 2013, he will not come within the zone of consideration and as such no orders will be issued transferring him along with remaining 36 teachers. In the circumstances, we direct that the proposed transfer of Krishnadev Pinjari be not given effect to along with other 36 teachers on priority basis. However, on going through the original circular as also the amended circular, we find that the interpretation made by Sangli Zilla Parishad giving priority to the old pending applications cannot be said to be contrary to the original circular and amended circular, on the contrary, the same in our considered view is in consonance with the amendment made

¶26

4 906-WP-3297-338-3296-4381.2016.sxw

¶27

in the circular. We also find that the interpretation appears to be just and proper and such interpretation is the purposive construction for the furtherance of the policy and if any other interpretation is given, the same would defeat the old applications which were in queue and the persons who had applied much subsequently, will march over the old applicants. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the petition. With the modification as regards the person mentioned at Sr. no. 37 (Krishnadev Pinjari), as discussed above, we dismiss the petition.

¶28

(RANJIT MORE,J.)

¶29

(SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

Mr. Ankush Namdev Mane v. the Chief Executive Officer, Zill Parishad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ankush Namdev Mane v. the Chief Executive Officer, Zill Parishad 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

M/S Ram Associates through Partner Mr. v. K. Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Manisha Maruti Patil Vs Ganpat Vithuji Khade Vidyalaya (Jr. College) through Its Head Master and Ors.

Pravin Pandurang Shinde Vs Governing Council through Its President and Ors.

Mr. Bharat Ravasaheb Shejal Vs the Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Shri Jagdish Balaji Nerkar and Ors. Vs Priyanka Madhukar Desle

Mr. Padulkar Kakaso Ishwara Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli and Ors.