Quashed

Ajitkumar Laxman Dhule v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC5 Oct 2021WP/5772/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a writ petition challenging repeated transfers of a civil servant. The court found that an impugned transfer to Shirdi, issued mid-tenure under the pretext of a request for Bhingar, violated Rule 41 regarding mid-term transfers without recording exceptional reasons. Consequently, the order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned transfer order dated 25.01.2021 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Ajitkumar Laxman Dhule Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 wp 5772.21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5772 OF 2021

¶4

Ajitkumar Laxman Dhule .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri Ameya N. Sabnis, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mrs. Charuta S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND R. N. LADDHA, JJ. DATE : 05TH OCTOBER, 2021.

¶9

FINAL ORDER :

¶10

. Mr. Sabanis, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner in a span of two years is transferred three times. On 18.09.2019 the petitioner is transferred from Shirdi to Vambori. On 23.09.2019, the petitioner was transferred from Vambori to Bhingar. On 26.05.2019, the petitioner is transferred from Bhingar to Parner and under the impugned transfer order, the petitioner is transferred from Parner to Shirdi. The learned counsel submits that, apart from the fact that, the transfer is malafide, the same is mid-term and mid-tenure transfer. Rule 41 of the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules does not permit mid-term transfer.

¶11

The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits

¶12

2 wp 5772.21

¶13

that, the petitioner is transferred from Parner to Shirdi on his request. It is case of request transfer. So question of mid-term transfer would not arise.

¶14

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, request of the petitioner was to transfer the petitioner to Bhingar from Parner and not to Shirdi.

¶15

Rule 41(2) of the M. E. P. S. Rules provides that save and exceptional case and unless reasons are recorded in writing by the management, transfer shall not be effected in the middle of the term. The order of transfer is dated 25.01.2021. The order of of transfer states that, the transfer is upon request of the petitioner. The petitioner had never made request for transfer at Shirdi. In case the respondents does not want to transfer the petitioner at Bhingar, then ought not to have issued transfer order mid-term.

¶16

In the light of that, the impugned transfer order is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶17

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

¶18

bsb/Oct. 21

Ajitkumar Laxman Dhule v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajitkumar Laxman Dhule 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neha Jeevan Khalane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Uttamrao Dange Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Santosh Uttamrao Dange Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Others

Shaikh Mohammad Aminuddin Shaikh Mohammad Bashiruddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rahibai Kisan Borade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhav Marotirao Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others