Partly allowed

Dipali Shankar Muchate v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC4 Aug 2021WP/4689/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that surplus candidates or reserved category backlog cannot bar transfer from unaided to aided posts. The impugned rejection order was quashed, and the Education Officer was directed to reconsider the proposal within four months following previous guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the transfer proposal was quashed and set aside. The respondent is directed to reconsider the proposal within four months.

Dipali Shankar Muchate Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 wp 4689.21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4689 OF 2021

¶4

Dipali Shankar Muchate .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri Dr. R. J. Godbole, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri A. R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri V. B. Narke, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND R. N. LADDHA, JJ. DATE : 04TH AUGUST, 2021.

¶9

FINAL ORDER :

¶10

. The proposal seeking approval to the transfer of the petitioner from unaided post to aided post is rejected. The said proposal is rejected on the ground that there are surplus candidates available and also backlog of reserved category candidates is not filled in.

¶11

We have heard Mr. Godbole, the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents/State.

¶12

As far as ground that the surplus candidates are available and as such management could not have transferred an employee does not stand to reason in view of Rule 41 of the

¶13

2 wp 4689.21

¶14

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service Regulation) Rules. This Court under its judgment and order dated 04^th July, 2019 in Writ Petition No. 1493 of 2018 with other connected writ petitions has observed that, some of the clauses of Circular dated 28.06.2016 are erroneous and the existence of surplus candidates with the education department would not be a bar for the management to transfer an employee from unaided to aided post.

¶15

The Education Officer certainly is required to consider seniority, roster, qualification of the candidate transferred from unaided to aided post, so also availability of post meant to a particular category to which the employee belongs. The petitioner claims to be belonging to general category. The Education Officer also has to confirm as to whether post for general category is available. The proposal may not be rejected on the ground that backlog of reserved category candidates is not filled in or there are surplus candidates available with the education department. All other aspects may be considered by the Education Officer.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Education Officer shall reconsider the proposal in the light of the observations made above and the judgment of this Court dated 04^th July, 2019 in Writ Petition No. 1493 of 2018 with other connected writ petitions. Same shall be done expeditiously and preferably within a period of four (04)

¶17

3 wp 4689.21

¶18

months from today.

¶19

In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶20

[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶21

bsb/Aug.21

Dipali Shankar Muchate v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipali Shankar Muchate v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary 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

Farooqui Misbahuddin Khalil Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Sajid Shaikh Hamid Vs the Union of India and Others

Rameshwar Marothi Totewad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kachru Marotirao Medhang Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Omprakash Sheshrao Kalyankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dagdu Anaton Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others