Disposed

Vijay @ Vijaykumar Keshavrao Bahhadure v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Sept 2018PIL/52/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a PIL concerning irregular teacher transfers and postings in Zilla Parishad, Beed. It noted that the State had already taken steps to comply with earlier orders, including sanctioning posts and repatriating excess teachers, rendering further judicial intervention unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition and connected civil applications were disposed of in view of State compliance with earlier orders.

Vijay @ Vijaykumar Keshavrao Bahhadure Vs the State… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

52.17pil

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.52 OF 2017

¶5

Vijay @ Vijaykumar s/o Keshavrao
Bahhadure, Age: 39 years,
Occ: Press Reporter,
R/o. C/o. Yogesh Cavane,
11-A-1-5-149, Shantiniketan Colony,
Pangri Road, Adarsh Nagar, Beed,
now residing at : Honaji Nagar,
Jatwada Road, Near Harsool Jail
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad...PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.

¶8

2. The Secretary, Department of Rural Development & Water Resources, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶9

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed.

¶10

4. The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. ..RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for petitioner;
Mr A.B. Girase, Government Pleader for
respondent/State;
Mr P.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No.3;

¶12

WITH

¶13

(2)

¶14

52.17pil

¶15

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11093 OF 2018 IN

¶16

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.52 OF 2017

¶17

Gorakhnath s/o Govindrao Rathod,
Age: 36 years, Occ: Service as
Assistant Teacher, Z.P.P.S.
Chahur Tanda, Tal. Majalgaon,
District Beed & ors..APPLICANTS

¶18

VERSUS

¶19

Vijay @ Vijaykumar s/o Keshavrao
Bahhadure, Age: 39 years,
Occ: Press Reporter,
R/o. C/o. Yogesh Cavane,
11-A-1-5-149, Shantiniketan Colony,
Pangri Road, Adarsh Nagar, Beed,
Now residing at Honaji Nagar,
Jatwada Road, Near Harsool Jail
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad
& ors..RESPONDENTS

¶20

Mr S.S. Thombre, Advocate for applicants;
Mr B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondent
No.1;
Mr A.B. Girase, Government Pleader for
respondent/State;
Mr P.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No.4;

¶21

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11094 OF 2018
IN

¶22

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.52 OF 2017

¶23

Pradip s/o Balaji Chate,
Age: 33 years, Occ: Service,
R/o. C/o. Z.P. Primary School,
Mandwa, Tq. Parali,
Dist. Beed & ors..APPLICANTS

¶24

52.17pil (3)

¶25

VERSUS

¶26

Vijay @ Vijaykumar s/o Keshavrao
Bahhadure, Age: 40 years,
Occ: Press Reporter,
R/o. C/o. Yogesh Cavane,
11-A-1-5-149, Shantiniketan Colony,
Pangri Road, Adarsh Nagar, Beed,
Now residing at Honaji Nagar,
Jatwada Road, Near Harsool Jail
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad
& ors..RESPONDENTS
Mr S.R. Kedar, Advocate for applicants;
Mr B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondent
No.1;
Mr A.B. Girase, Government Pleader for
respondent/State;
Mr P.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No.4

¶27

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11233 OF 2018
IN

¶28

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.52 OF 2017

¶29

Kailas s/o Raghunath Chavan,
Age: 35 years, Occ: Service,
R/o. Z.P.P.S. Golegaon,
Tal. Georai, District Beed...APPLICANTS
VERSUS

¶30

Vijay @ Vijaykumar s/o Keshavrao
Bahhadure, Age: 39 years,
Occ: Press Reporter,
R/o. C/o. Yogesh Cavane,
11-A-1-5-149, Shantiniketan Colony,
Pangri Road, Adarsh Nagar, Beed,
Now residing at Honaji Nagar,
Jatwada Road, Near Harsool Jail
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad
& ors..RESPONDENTS

¶31

Mr Vilas P. Savant, Advocate for applicants;
Mr B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondent

¶32

52.17pil

¶33

(4)

¶34

No.1;

¶35

Mr A.B. Girase, Government Pleader for
respondent/State;

¶36

Mr P.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No.4;

¶37

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
 MANISH PITALE,JJ.
 DATE : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2018

¶38

ORAL ORDER :

¶39

Heard Mr. Sagar Killarikar, learned

¶40

Counsel appearing for the petitioner. He submits
that the petitioner is a newspaper reporter and he
is having vast experience of working of Zilla
Parishad. The grievance of the petitioner is Zilla
Parishad, Beed failed to perform its duties and
comply statutory provisions so as to protect and
enforce the rights of citizens in general and
teachers in particular.

¶41

2.Mr. Killarikar, learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioner submitted that Zilla Parishad,

¶42

Beed effected transfer orders though there are
certain modalities and procedure for effecting such

¶43

transfers. The modalities and procedure was not
followed.

¶44

52.17pil

¶45

(5)

¶46

3.On the backdrop of submissions of Mr.

¶47

Killarikar, learned Counsel, we have gone through
the material placed on order as well as order
sheet.

¶48

4.Perusal of the order dated 3rd July, 2017
refers to communication, which is placed on record
at Exhibit-D (page 42 of the paper book). The
Division Bench of this Court while considering the
document Exhibit-D observed that this Court is not
inclined to entertain the petition as a Public
Interest Litigation for the simple reason that it
relates to service matter. However, Mr.
Killarikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner
confines his request to consideration and further
action on Exhibit-D. That is why this limited
direction.

¶49

5.Mr. Girase, learned Government Pleader

¶50

invited our attention to the replies filed by the
State. Firstly, affidavit in reply was filed on

¶51

behalf of the Smt. Vandana Krishna, Additional
Chief Secretary, School Education and Sports
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai on 7th August, 2018
and then additional affidavit in reply on 27th
August, 2018.

¶52

6.Mr. Thombre, learned Counsel appearing for

¶53

the applicants in Civil Application No.11093 of
2018 submitted that the application is filed on

¶54

behalf of certain teachers who are before this
Court with a prayer for permitting them to
intervene in the petition. It is submitted by Mr.
Thombre, learned Counsel that applicants are the
teachers whose transfers are effected. He submitted

¶55

that the issue of transfer of teachers was already
before this Court for consideration and the
Division Bench in bunch of petitions namely Writ
Petition No.5057 of 2015 and other petitions took

¶56

the cognizance of the order dated 23rd April, 2015
and the said order was in the nature of general
order effected transfers at the instance of Chief

¶57

Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Beed.

¶58

52.17pil

¶59

(7)

¶60

7.It will be useful to refer the

¶61

observations of the Division Bench in the above
referred petitions and same read thus :

¶62

“In all these writ petitions, the
petitioners are working as Assistant
Teachers. They were transferred under the
orders of the Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Beed. The transfers were on
account of couple convenience/mutual
transfers/request transfers. It is not
disputed fact between petitioners and
respondents that pursuant to transfer
orders issued to them petitioners had
joined at the transferred place and have
started discharging their duties. On
23.04.2015 general order is issued by the
State to the Chief Executive Officer of
Zilla Parishad, Beed that, there are
irregularities in the transfers/absorptions
of the teachers and that has been observed
by the Enquiry Committed appointed by the
Additional Commissioner. The said order
states that, after following principles of
natural justice, further steps be taken.

¶63

2. It is submitted that, at the

¶64

52.17pil

¶65

(8)

¶66

Principal Seat at Bombay interim orders are
passed with regard to Government Resolution
dated 13.12.2013, which deals with the
staffing pattern. It is stand of the
Government that, because of the said
interim orders passed at Principal Seat at
Bombay, the Government is not in a position
to take decision with regard to sanction of
additional posts.

¶67

3.An anomalous situation would

¶68

arise, where the petitioners are already
transferred/absorbed at the respective
placesaspertheordersof
absorption/transferandtheyare

¶69

discharging their duties and subsequently
after more than a year present order dated
23.04.2015 is issued. The same is a general
order. It is not pointed out to any
petitioner individually. Naturally, the
Chief Executive Officer, will have to
examine each and every case. It will have
to issue notices to petitioners, call for
the reply and then take decision.

¶70

4.The stand of the Government also
appears that, the posts on which the
petitioners are transferred/absorbed are
pending for sanction. The Zilla Parishad

¶71

52.17pil

¶72

(9)

¶73

has moved proposal to the Government for
sanction of said posts, however, the
Government is not in a position to take
decision because of interim orders passed
at Principal Seat at Bombay.

¶74

5.Considering the said facts of the
case, we feel it appropriate to pass
following order.

¶75

6.The respondents will allow the
petitioners to work at the places on which
they were transferred/absorbed, till the
decision is taken by the State with regard
to sanction of the posts, at the place the
petitioners are absorbed/transferred. The
State shall move the Principal Seat at
Bombay for clarification of the order with
regard to Government Resolution dated
13.12.2013 and thereafter take steps in
tune with that. Till the decision is taken
by the State, with regard to sanction of
the posts as submitted by the Zilla
Parishad with the State, the petitioners
would be retained at the places where they
are absorbed/transferred. Of course, the
respondents can take further steps after
the State takes the decision about the
sanction of the posts as per the proposal

¶76

(10)

¶77

52.17pil

¶78

submitted by the Zilla Parishad. The Chief
Executive Officer is at liberty to examine
each and every case on its own merits. The
writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.”

¶79

8. Mr. Girase, learned Government Pleader

¶80

submitted that the State by considering the orders
of this Court thought it fit to review the policy,
special meeting was convened. He invited our
attention to the additional affidavit dated 27th
August, 2018. In paragraph-8 it is stated that, “I
further say that some teachers aggrieved by letter
dated 23.04.2015 filed Writ Petition NO.5057 of
2015 and others. The Hon. High Court vide order
dated 03.08.2015 directed that the decision is
taken by the State, with regard to sanction of the
posts as per proposal submitted by the Zilla
Parishad, Beed on 1.10.2015 thereby retaining the

¶81

petitioner at the places where they are
absorbed/transferred. It is further stated in
paragraph-9 that, “I further submit that as per the
direction given by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ

¶82

Petition No. 5057 of 2015 and the proposal

¶83

52.17pil

¶84

(11)

¶85

submitted by CEO, Z.P. Beed regarding increased
post as per staffing pattern, the State sanctioned
793 post of teachers vide Government Resolution
dated 27.11.2015, annexed and marked as Exh.C of
the petition at page no. 39.”

¶86

9.Paragraph Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15

¶87

of the above referred additional affidavit reply
read thus :

¶88

“10.I submit that the 793 teachers post were
sanctioned subject to following terms and
conditions.

¶89

(1)As per the provisions of G.R. dated
01.03.2014 Vasti Shala Swayamsevak/Nimsevak
may be appointed in Zilla Parishad.

¶90

(2)Teachers absorbed by inter district
transfer may be posted on sanctioned post as
per the prevailing procedure of Rural
Development Department.

¶91

(3)In this process reservation policy should
strictly followed. Those teachers can not be
appointed due to roaster point, should be
sent back to their original districts.

¶92

52.17pil

¶93

(12)

¶94

(4)Prevailing procedure strictly be followed
while appointing teachers transferred by inter
district transfer. Even though the teachers
transferred by inter district transfer are
excessed, those teachers should be sent back
to their original districts.

¶95

(5)After completion of the process the vacant
posts should be filled up following due
procedure as per prevailing policy.

¶96

(6)Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Beed should
personally look into the matter that no
irregularities will be taken place.

¶97

(7)The Commissioner of Education and Director
of Education should take care of only the
salary of the sanctioned increased post will
be given.

¶98

11.I say that, communication received
from the office of Government Pleaders, High
Court Bench at Aurangabad dt. 10.8.2018. I
convened a meeting with Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department (Respondent
No.2), and Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad Beed ( on behalf of Respondent No.3).
Copy of communication dt. 10.8.2018 is annexed

¶99

52.17pil

¶100

(13)

¶101

herewith and marked as Exh.R-1. In this
meeting the following decisions were taken:

¶102

I.Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Beed should update roaster before
20.08.2018 complying all the queries of
Magasvargiya Kaksha.

¶103

II.Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Beed should repatriate all Excess
Teachers as per the roaster sanctioned by
Assistant Commissioner, Magasvargiya Kaksh,
Aurangabad for the year 2016 to their
respective Zilla Parishad immediately. While
repatriating excess teachers the junior most
teacher should be repatriated first.

¶104

III. Due to the process of repatriation,
if large number of teachers are being
repatriated from some schools, the Education
Officer should make sufficient teachers
available to these schools at local level, so
that the education of children do not suffer.

¶105

IV.The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad Beed should also repatriate the
Excess Teachers after getting sanction of
roaster for the year 2018 from Assistant
Commissioner, Magasvargiy Kaksh, Aurangabad.

¶106

(14)

¶107

52.17pil

¶108

V.The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla
Parishad Beed should take care in future to
follow the roaster strictly and not to permit
additional teachers to be filled in.

¶109

VI.The follow up will be taken on
21.08.2018.

¶110

Hereto annexed and marked as Exh.R-2
the copy of the minutes dated 14.08.2018.

¶111

12.I say and submit that, the meeting
was also held on 21.08.2018 to follow up of
the decisions taken in the meeting dated
14.08.2018. In this meeting the Education
Officer (Primary), Z.P., Beed informed about
the efforts taken by him to get the roaster
sanctioned from Magasvargiya Kaksh of
Divisional Commissioner Office, Aurangabad.
The roaster is finalized on 24.08.2018. The
Education officer also submitted that as to
how the sanction is given by Magasvargiya
Kaksh, excess teachers will be repatriated to
their respective Zilla Parishads by Chief
Executive Officer and will strictly maintain
roaster.

¶112

13.I say and submit that, as directed by

¶113

52.17pil

¶114

(15)

¶115

the Hon'ble High Court on 09.08.2018, I have
coordinated with the Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department and held two
meetings with him to comply the order of the
Hon'ble Court. I say that to comply the order
of the Hon'ble Court I have taken all the
efforts as a head of the School Education
Department which is policy making department
in respect of Education. The Rural Development
Department is Administrative Department in
respect of maintaining roaster, transfers,
postings and other service matter. The rural
Development Department has control and
supervision over the Zilla Parishad Education
Department as far as reservation and roster is
concerned.

¶116

14.I say that I have also taken review
about the action taken against the responsible
officers for not maintaining the roster. The
Education Officer produced the letter dated
02.08.2018 of Deputy Chief Executive Officer,
Z.P., Beed stating the report of action taken.
Shri Rajiv Jawalekar, the then Chief Executive
Officer, Z.P. Beed was suspended vide order
dated 12.03.2015 for the irregularities
committed during inter district transfers.
Departmental Proceeding has already been
commenced against Shri Jawalekar vide order

¶117

52.17pil

¶118

(16)

¶119

dated 27.09.2017. Shri P. K. Yewale, Jr.
Administrative Officer and Junior Assistant
Shri S. H. Sherekar have been suspended vide
order dated 22.11.2013. Hereto annexed and
marked as Exh.R-3 (colly) the copy of the
letters dated 02.08.2018, dated 08.08.2018 and
16.08.2018.

¶120

15.I say and submit that the efforts
have been taken and necessary instructions
have been given to Education Officer to get
roster sanctioned and repatriate excess
teachers to their respective Zilla Parishads.
The Rural Development Department has also
instructed vide letter dated 08.08.2018 to
Education Officer to implement as per the
guidelines given in the G.R. dated 27.11.2015.
The Commissioner of Education has also
instructed Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Beed vide letter dated 16.08.2018 to
take action as per the guidelines issued vide
G.R. dated 27.11.2015.”

¶121

10.Thus, learned Government Pleader submitted
that due care and caution is taken to protect the
interest of the teachers. At the same time, the
State Government also sought approval from the
Backward Cell so as to maintain the roster and an

¶122

attempt is made to see that no prejudice is caused
to the teachers to whom certain protection are
granted. Thus, what emerges is, the transfers

¶123

which are already effected and the teacher who are
transferred at various places are permitted to join
the duties so that the students are not suffered.
The exercise of repatriation of teachers is in
process. If any personal grievance against
repatriation subsists, such a person is certainly
having a remedy available for redressal his
grievance by approaching competent forum including

¶124

a judicial forum. The purpose for which the
petition is filed is already served. The
individual grievance either service benefits or the
grievance of depriving any service benefits may be
a different issue for which the person may avail
appropriate remedy, if so advised.

¶125

11.Mr Girase, learned Government Pleader also

¶126

invited our attention to the statement made in the
affidavit-in-reply to submit that the State
Government is taking appropriate steps as

¶127

52.17pil

¶128

(18)

¶129

expeditiously as possible. Statement in the

¶130

affidavit-in-reply reads thus:-

¶131

“16.... the Education Department and

¶132

Rural Development Department have taken steps
on war-footing to implement the reservation

¶133

policy and repatriation of excess teachers as

¶134

mentioned above.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶135

12.Considering the above referred aspects, we

¶136

see no reason to keep the petition pending as the

¶137

purpose for filing the petition is already

¶138

achieved. The State Government is taking

¶139

appropriate steps under the directions of this
Court and exercise of repatriation is going on.

¶140

13.We further make it clear that if there is

¶141

any grievance against repatriation, same is purely
a personal grievance and such a person is not
prevented from approaching any appropriate forum
for redressal of his grievance including a judicial

¶142

forum, if advised so.

¶143

52.17pil (19)

¶144

14.With the above referred observation, the
petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶145

15.In view of disposal of writ petition,
civil applications are also disposed of
accordingly.

¶146

(MANISH PITALE)(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
JUDGE JUDGE

¶147

Tupe

Vijay @ Vijaykumar Keshavrao Bahhadure v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay @ Vijaykumar Keshavrao Bahhadure v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parshuram Balaram Patil and Anr. Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation (Maharashtra) Ltd, through Managing Director and Ors.

Parvez Razak Darvesh vs Dilawar Daud Gaonkhadkar and Ors.

Digambar S/O Haribhau Pajgade Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Public Works Dept. Mumbai and Others

Rajani Raju Satyanarayan Vs the Union of India and Others

Uday Govindrao Gaware and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dadu Sudam Patekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Parvez Razak Darvesh vs Dilawar Daud Gaonkhadkar and Ors.

Vikrant Chandrahas Tawde Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Railways and Ors.

Laxmanrao Bajirao Kale Vs Laxmanrao Kolhe and Others

Ballu Pandurang Nake and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyanobarao Namdeorao Patil Died Lrs Balasaheb Dnyanobarao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sahyadri Bahujan Vidya Prasarak Samaj through Its Registrar Vs Nandkumar and Others

Shashank Shivajirao Chimanshette Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Malikarjun Ramrao Rodge Vs Rajesh Jaising Gole and Others