Allowed

Shri. Bharat Raosaheb Shejal v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Jul 2017WP/6438/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief for inter-district transfer between Zilla Parishads for teaching posts. Court upheld transfer rights under the earlier 2011 policy despite the existence of a 2017 policy, finding the new policy did not apply retrospectively to lawful no objection certificates.

What did the court decide?

Directorate instructed to enable petitioner to resume duties in Sangli Zilla Parishad within four weeks.

Shri. Bharat Raosaheb Shejal Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

vikrant 1/3 906-WP-6438-17.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6438 OF 2017

¶4

Shri Bharat Raosaheb Shejal … Petitioner Vs.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar i/b. Mr. S. A. Mane for the Petitioner. Ms. Kavita Solunke, AGP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Yuvraj Gharal h/f Mr. Vijay Killedar for Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE : JULY 13, 2017.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

¶10

The petitioner, by way of this Petition, has challenged clause 9 of the Government Resolution dated 24^th April, 2017. The petitioner is not pressing the same into service and restricting his claim in the Petition for direction to respondent no.2-Sangli Zilla Parishad to absorb him in it's Primary School as a Teacher by way of inter-district transfer from Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad.

¶11

The petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad and his wife is working as an Assistant Teacher in Sangli Zilla Parishad.

¶12

vikrant 2/3 906-WP-6438-17.odt

¶13

As such, under the erstwhile policy, which was notified by the State Government by it's Resolution dated 29^th September, 2011, the petitioner had applied to the Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad as well as the Sangli Zilla Parishad for his inter-district transfer.

¶14

The Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad has given it's no objection vide communication dated 7^th February, 2015, whereas, respondent no.2 has also communicated it's no objection and the availability of post in Sangli Zilla Parishad vide communication dated 5^th January, 2017 which was addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad. However, since respondent no.2 is not proceeding further with the said proposal, the petitioner was required to approached this Court. In the meantime, the policy has been changed and the new Government Resolution has been issued on 24^th April, 2017.

¶15

The learned counsel for respondent no. 2 states that though respondent no.2 had given its no objection, the transfer could not be effected on account of the letter received from the State Government dated 7^th April, 2017.

¶16

We find that the stand taken by respondent no.2 is without any substance. In view of the policy which has been formulated vide Government Resolution dated 24^th April, 2017, and specifically clause 6 thereof, the petitioner is entitled for transfer. Clause 6 clearly provides that such of the teachers, who have been granted no objection certificate from both the Zilla Parishads,

¶17

vikrant 3/3 906-WP-6438-17.odt

¶18

could not be affected by the policy of 2017. No doubt that the said clause provides that if it is revealed that the no objection certificate is received by some illegal means, the respective Zilla Parishad would be entitled to take serious action against the concerned teacher.

¶19

It is not the case of respondent no.2 that the no objection of either of the Zilla Parishads is obtained by the petitioner by illegal means.

¶20

In that view of the matter, we find that the petition deserves to be allowed. The respondent no.2 is directed to take necessary steps so as to enable the petitioner to resume his duties in Sangli Zilla Parishad within a period of four (04) weeks from today.

¶21

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.)

¶23

(B. R. GAVAI, J.)

Shri. Bharat Raosaheb Shejal v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Bharat Raosaheb Shejal v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.

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

Afreen Nayeem Khan and 2 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Mr Dilip Gangadhar Sopal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sangita Kunchikorve and 4 Ors. Vs Balmohan Vidyamandir and 8 Ors.

Shri. Sat Dev Prakash Vs the Special Land Acq. Officer.

Smt. Sulochan Yashwant Guldagde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nachiket Shriram Kulkarni Vs Deputy Director of Education and Ors.