Vijay Madhukar Yelve and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Prin. Sec. Rural Dev. Dept. and Anr.

¶1

923-503-504-WP-11509-2025.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Digitally signed GAYATRIRAJENDRASHIMPI by GAYATRIRAJENDRASHIMPIDate:2025.09.15 20:55:23 +0530

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 11509 OF 2025

¶5

Uddhav Narayan Ghuge & Ors. … Petitioners Versus The State Of Maharashtra Thr Rural Development Dept & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 9024 OF 2025

¶8

Vijay Madhukar Yelve & Ors. … Petitioners Versus The State Of Maharashtra ,Thr The Principal Secretary & Ors. … Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 11432 OF 2025

¶11

Pravin Mahadev Rewale & Ors. … Petitioners Versus The State Of Maharashtra ,Thr The Principal Secretary & Ors. … Respondents

¶12

****

¶13

Mr. Narendra Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Vinayak Kumbhar, Mr. Rajendra Khaire i/b Ms. Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar, Advocates for the Petitioners.

¶14

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Additional GP a/w Ms. N. M. Mehra, AGP for the Respondents/State in WP No.9024 of 2025.

¶15

Mr. C. G. Gavnekar a/w Mr. Rohit Parab, Advocates for Respondent No.2.

¶16

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Additional GP a/w Ms. D. S. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondent/State in WP No. 11432 of 2025.

1

Gayatri Shimpi

923-503-504-WP-11509-2025.odt

¶21

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

¶22

DATE : 11^th SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶23

P.C. :

¶24

Writ Petition No.9024 of 2025 and Writ Petition No.11432 of 2025, have been taken on the Production Board, considering that an identical matter is at Serial No.923.

¶25

Office to accept the Vakalatnama of the learned Advocate representing the Zilla Parishad.

¶26

In Writ Petition No. 9024 of 2025, the ad-interim order was passed on 17/07/2025, recording the contention of the Petitioners that all of them were working in the difficult areas. They have been recently posted in the simple/plain areas between May, 2023 to 26^th May, 2025. They are sought to be transferred back to the difficult areas, without even completing 5 years in the plain areas. The outsourced agency, which operates the Teacher Transfer Management System with the aid of the Government of Maharashtra, Rural Development Department, publishes an automated postings of teachers in difficult areas in a list of persons who are liable to be transferred, including those who have already

¶27

2

¶28

Gayatri Shimpi

¶29

923-503-504-WP-11509-2025.odt

¶30

worked in the difficult areas and have recently been brought into the plain areas.

¶31

The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Zilla Parishad points out that, firstly, all these Petitioners should have approached the CEO of the Zilla Parishad, who could have looked into the grievances voiced through their representations. Secondly, all the 105 persons are not working in difficult areas. A handful of about 23 to 25 employees have earlier worked in the difficult areas.

¶32

The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Narendra Bandiwadekar hastens to add that some of these Petitioners have been included in the list of transferees.

¶33

The learned AGP for the State and the learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad point out an order passed on 26/08/2025 by this Court [Coram : Shree Chandrashekhar J., (as His Lordship then was) and Aarti A. Sathe, J.] in Writ Petition No. 11441 of 2025 (Vijaykumar Rajaram Desale and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others), vide which, the Petition was disposed off by permitting the Petitioners to approach the

¶34

CEO of the Zilla Parishad, who would consider the grievance of the

¶35

3

¶36

Gayatri Shimpi

¶37

923-503-504-WP-11509-2025.odt

¶38

Petitioners through the outsourced agency, namely, Vinsys IT Services India Ltd., and take a decision on whether to include these Petitioners in the list of transferees, if they are liable to be transferred.

¶39

In view of the above, we permit all these Petitioners to make their individual representations to the CEO of the Zilla Parishad, on or before 22^nd September, 2025. The CEO would consider the grievance of each of these Petitioners, which is primarily based on two grounds, firstly, that the Petitioners were working in difficult areas and have been recently transferred to the simple areas and secondly, that some of the Petitioners have been working for only two years at their present postings and have not completed the requisite period of 5 years in order to be transferred.

¶40

The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad submits that in

¶41

such circumstances, it is not mandatory to complete the 5 years’ period for an individual at a particular posting, and he could be transferred even before completion of 5 years, provided there are vacancies in the difficult areas.

¶42

In view of the above, these Petitions are disposed off. Those

¶43

4

¶44

Gayatri Shimpi

¶45

923-503-504-WP-11509-2025.odt

¶46

Petitioners who do not tender their representations, on or before 22^nd September, 2025, the ad-interim protection granted by this Court would lose its efficacy in relation to such Petitioners w.e.f. 23^rd September, 2025.

¶47

Those Petitioners who make their representations within the afore stated timeline, would not be transferred until the CEO deals with their grievances and after due verification, passes orders of excluding them from the list of transferees. Those who are liable to be transferred, would be included in such list of transfers.

¶48

Needless to state, the other orders being passed by the Zilla Parishad with regard to transfer of employees, would continue.

¶49

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶50

5

¶51

Gayatri Shimpi

Vijay Madhukar Yelve and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Prin. Sec. Rural Dev. Dept. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Madhukar Yelve and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Prin. Sec. Rural Dev. Dept. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Irfan Abdul Aziz Ansari vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Dr Parmanand Namdeoji Dange vs the Hon. Secretary All India Shri Shivaji Memoraial Society and Ors.

Shubhangi Pandurang Sonawane @ Shubhangi Vikas Kamble vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

New Mercury a Co-Operative Housing Society Limited vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Malhari Laxman Magar vs State of Maharashtra

Highway -88 through Dilip Ramji Tank vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation