Manisha Baburao Yadav and Another vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Mr. Arvind G. Ambetkar, Advocate for Petitioners in WP/11275/2025, WP/524/2026, WP/11125/2025, WP/11959/2025, WP/11099/2025, WP/10797/2025, WP/11537/2025

¶98

Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondents No.3 & 4 in WP/11079/2025, 11052/2025, WP/11053/2025, WP/11319/2025

¶99

Mr. P.R.Nagare, Advocate for Respondents No.3 and 4 in WP/11095/2025,11123/2025, WP/11124/2025, WP/11322/2025

¶100

Mr. S.R. Dheple, Advocate for Respondents No.3 to 5 in WP/11455/2025 and for Respondents No.4 and 5 in WP/11275/2025, 11659/2025

¶101

904-WP-11079-25 (+15).odt

¶102

{4}

¶103

Ms. M.V. Narwade, Advocate for Respondents No.4 and 5 IN WP/524/2026 and for Respondents No.4 and 5 in WP/11125/2025, WP/11099/2025, WP/10797/2025

¶104

Ms. Sheetal V. Salunke, Advocate for Respondents No.4 and 5 in WP/11537/2025

¶105

Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGP for Respondents-State in WP/11079/2025, WP/11052/2025, WP/11053/2025, WP/11123/2025, WP/11124/20225, 11125/2025

¶106

Mr. V.M. Kagne, AGP for Respondents-State in WP/11095/2025, WP/11052/202511053/2025, WP/11455/2025, WP/11099/2025 Mr. R.S. Wani, AGP for Respondents-State in WP/11275/2025

¶107

Mr. S.B. Narwade, AGP for Respondents-State in WP/11319/2025, WP/524/2026, WP/10797/2025

¶108

Mr. Abhijit M. Phule, AGP for Respondents-State in WP11322/2025, WP/11959/2025

¶109

Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondents-State in WP11453/2025 Mr. S.K. Tambe, Addl. GP. For Respondents-State in WP/11537/2025

¶110

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 17 MARCH, 2026

¶111

PER COURT :-

¶112

Writ Petition No.11125/2025, WP/11959/2025, 11099/2025, WP/10797/2025 AND WP/11537/2025 are not on board. Upon mentioning those matters are taken on board.

¶113

Heard the learned advocate for the appearing for the petitioners,

¶114

the learned AGPs for the State, and the learned advocate for the respondents in the respective petitions.

¶115

Learned Advocates for the petitioners place reliance on the order passed at the Principal Seat in Maharashtra Rajya Shikshak Parishad, Prathamik Vibhag vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors . (Writ Petition

¶116

904-WP-11079-25 (+15).odt

¶117

{5}

¶118

No. 11788 of 2025 with companion matters, decided on 23.09.2025). Note was taken of the fact that those petitioners, as well as some similarly situated petitioners, had approached the Nagpur Bench, this Bench and the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur of this Court and, in some matters, taking into consideration the fact that there were mid-term transfers, some interim orders were passed. Thereafter, taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the Government as well as the advocate representing the different Zilla Parishads, note regarding effecting transfers of teachers throughout the State was taken. It has been noted that the data of lakhs of teachers is collected by various Zilla Parishads and that the said data is fed into the Teacher Transfer Management System (TIMS), which is a system operated by the Rural Development Department of the Government of Maharashtra. This system considers various categories of employees who are liable to be transferred. Then, it was submitted that the entire system of Annual General Transfers (AGT) operates like a chain, and those liable to be transferred move out of their seats and proceed to the posts where they have been posted, and another person occupies the said transferred seat. The said transfer orders have created problems, as the teachers whose transfers have been stayed would remain there itself, while the persons transferred to their places would have either been relieved or would be expecting to be relieved. Thereafter, the Coordinate Bench has

¶119

904-WP-11079-25 (+15).odt

¶120

{6}

¶121

taken note of the Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024, more particularly the clauses pertaining to how a transfer should be effected, the categories in which it can be effected, as well as how the grievance of a transferee can be considered. Those provisions were considered. Thereafter, it was noted that all the petitioners before the Court showed their agreement to move their individual applications to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the respective Zilla Parishads within a particular period in terms of Clause No. 5.10.1. It was then directed that the CEO would consider the record and take a decision in each case within a period of 30 days, and thereafter, by giving such directions, those petitions were disposed of.

¶122

Here also, status quo was granted in respect of the transfers of the petitioners, and therefore we are also taking note of Clause Nos. 5.10.1, 5.10.2, 5.10.3 and 5.10.4 of the Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024. We are not taking a view different from that taken by the Coordinate Bench when the mechanism is provided. We had adjourned the matters yesterday to make it convenient for the learned advocates for the petitioners to take instructions from the petitioners as to whether they agree to avail the couple convenience provided policy in the said Government Resolution itself.

¶123

904-WP-11079-25 (+15).odt

¶124

In view of all these aspects and the facts, we also make it clear that, similar to the Coordinate Bench, we are not expecting the CEO to write a lengthy order, but the order should reflect that he has analysed the record and the material in respect of each petitioner. However, if any teacher/petitioner is aggrieved, he/she can avail of the remedy under Clause No. 5.10.2. Since paragraph No. 10 of the said order already gives directions to the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, we need not issue similar directions once again.

¶125

In view of the above, we dispose of all the writ petitions with the following directions:

¶126

a) The aggrieved petitioner would follow the procedure in Clause No.5.10.1 and make an application to the CEO of the respective Zilla Parishads, within a period of seven working days from today.

¶127

b) The concerned CEO would verify from the data available and write a concise order if the application has to be rejected.

¶128

c) Any teacher aggrieved by the order of the CEO would be at liberty to strictly follow Clause No.5.10.2 of the Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024. The further process shall be governed by the other clauses of the said Government Resolution.

¶129

904-WP-11079-25 (+15).odt

¶130

{8}

¶131

d) Until the CEO decides the representation, the order passed earlier that the petitioner should not be relieved, would continue to protect such petitioner, till the decision of the CEO.

¶132

e) The concerned CEO should try to follow the Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024, as far as possible.

¶133

1. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petitions, pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of

¶134

[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶135

S P Rane

Manisha Baburao Yadav and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Baburao Yadav and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dharashiv District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. through Its Chief Executive Officer vs the Reservce Bank of India through Its Chief General Manager

Aniket Tryambak Khot vs National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences

Syed Abdul Hafiz Zafar Ali vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Akshata Yuvraj Yedke vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Archana Ganesh Pawar and Another vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gangaram Namdeo Mali and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others