Partly allowed

Shaikh Haseeb Abdul Habeeb and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC2 Jan 2024WP/9108/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought transfer from a Junior College of Education to a Secondary School under Rule 41(5)(a) of the 1981 Rules. The court found the Deputy Director's orders unsustainable and quashed them, directing fresh consideration of the transfer proposals within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 05/01/2022 and 16/06/2022 quashed and set aside; Deputy Director to process transfer proposals per Rule 41(5)(a) within 45 days.

Shaikh Haseeb Abdul Habeeb and Another Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:102-DB

¶2

9108.23wp

¶3

(1)

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

4 WRIT PETITION NO. 9108 OF 2023

¶6

SHAIKH HASEEB ABDUL HABEEB AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for Petitioners; Mr P. K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 Mr I. D. Maniyar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 6

¶8

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 2^nd January, 2024

¶10

PER COURT:

¶11

We have considered the extensive submissions of the learned Advocate for the Petitioners. The sum and substance of his submission is that Rule 41(5)(a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (“the 1981 Rules) is applicable to the Petitioners’ case and they are willing to be governed by the said clause. Even if their salaries are reduced, they have no objection, and as there is a vacancy, they may be treated as being eligible for transfer to the

¶12

(2)

¶13

9108.23wp

¶14

Higher Secondary School from a Junior College of Education in terms of sub-clause (a).

¶15

Considering the record before us, we find that the impugned orders dated 05/01/2022 and 16/06/2022, passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, would not be sustainable. On the one hand, the Petitioners assert that the signature of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, is seen on the Annexure, and on the other hand, the said Authority concludes in the light of the Government Circular dated 08/06/2020 and the Government Resolution dated 01/04/2021, that a candidate cannot be transferred from the Junior College of Education to the Secondary School.

¶16

We find from the Government Resolution dated 01/04/2021, that such a transfer is not precluded and more so, in the light of sub-clause (a) of Rule 41(5) of the 1981 Rules. The only rider that is applicable is, such a transfer should not be against the will of a candidate and such a candidate/employee should be agreeable to move down from the Junior College of Education to the Secondary School, notwithstanding that, the salary scale/pay-scale is likely to be reduced.

¶17

9108.23wp (3)

¶18

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that,

¶19

in the Petitioners’ cases, the pay-scale is likely to be the same. He further adds that, Rule 41(5)(a) is acceptable to them.

¶20

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed . The impugned orders dated 05/01/2022 and 16/06/2022 are quashed and set aside. If the signature of the Education Officer is not found on the proforma annexure, Respondent No.2/ Deputy Director of Education, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar shall call upon the said Authority to place his signature on the said proforma. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 shall proceed to pass an appropriate order on the transfer proposals of the Petitioners in the light of Rule 41 (5)(a) of the 1981 Rules within a period of 45 days. If there is any other legal impediment, the decision of Respondent No.2 should reflect reasons, if an adverse order is to be passed.

¶21

(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶22

sjk

Shaikh Haseeb Abdul Habeeb and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Haseeb Abdul Habeeb and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhausaheb Bhujangrao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Swati Vilas Ubale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vishal Popat Sapkale Vs Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Dhule through Its Member Secretary and Another

Dasrao Uttamrao Hambarde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Surayakant Bandappa Kasnale Vs the Competent Authority the Deputy Collector and Others

Sudhir Nivruttirao Gaulkar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Another