Vishal Jakkoji Chavan and Another vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

. The petitioners seek quashing and setting aside the final list published on 19.09.2025 for remaining difficult area round for transfer on the ground that petitioners were already transferred in the year 2024.

¶12

2 The petitioners have come with a case that respondent No.1 Government has issued Resolution dated 18.06.2024 regarding transfer of Zilla Parishad teachers, wherein the State Government has classified the

¶13

2

¶14

913_WP_11758_2025

¶15

transfer policy into two parts viz. Special Category Part-I and Special Category Part-II. The Special Category Part-I deals with various other criteria or the circumstances in which the transfer can be sought and Special Category Part-II deals with couple convenience. In view of the said Government Resolution respondent No.1 had stated that the transfer should be made until 31^st May every year and the teachers who have completed three years of service at difficult place / station will have a special right for seeking transfers. The teachers who have completed five years of service at a place other than the difficult place / station would then be held eligible for transfer. The wife of petitioner No.1 is also serving with Saibaba Primary School at Dharmabad, Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded since 23.07.2003. Petitioner No.1 was posted in the school of Z.P.P.S., Khambala, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded, where he had joined the service on 04.03.2024. Since then he is imparting education there. Therefore, they are coming under the definition of couple convenience i.e. Special Category Part – II. In respect of petitioner No.2, he came to be transferred at Z.P.P.S., Rahati, Tq. & Dist. Nanded, where he joined the service on 27.02.2024. Initially, petitioner No.1 had served for eight years in PESA area i.e. Z.P.P.S., Dhanora CPS Sindkhed, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded in an around 1998. The entire taluka of Kinwat as well as Mahur in Dist. Nanded is under the definition of difficult place / area. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner No.1 cannot be re-transferred

¶16

3

¶17

913_WP_11758_2025

¶18

within the PESA area. Petitioner No.2 is highly qualified and both of them are teaching Mathematics as well as Science subjects. As the petitioners were transferred in the year 2004, they ought not to have been considered for transfer for the list prepared on 19.09.2025. Now, both of them have been proposed to be transferred in the difficult area. Petitioners ought to have been given option to fill in the Annual General Transfer form, but no such option was given and abruptly their names are appearing. The moment the petitioners received the final list for remaining difficult area, they had given representation to respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 19.09.2025 for the recall of their names from the list and hence they are approaching this Court.

¶19

3 Heard learned Advocate Mr. Suvidh S. Kulkarni for petitioners, learned AGP Mr. A.M. Phule for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶20

4 Learned Advocate for petitioners has taken us through Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024, especially Rule 1.10, which runs thus -

¶21

“ cnyhl ik= f’k{kd Eg.kts T;k f’k{kdkaph loZlk/kkj.k {ks=kr fdaok vo?kM {ks=kr cnyhlkBh fuf’pr /kjko;kph lyx lsok 10 o"ksZ iw.kZ >kysyh vkgs vkf.k fon;eku 'kkGsr lnj f’k{kdkph lsok 5 o"ksZ iw.kZ >kysyh vkgs vls f’k{kdrFkkfi] vo?kM {ks=krhy 'kkGkae/;s fjDr vlysyh ins Hkjko;kph >kY;kl loZlk/kkj.k {ks=kr 10 o"ksZ iw.kZ >kysY;k f’k{kdkauk fon;eku 'kkGsrhy 5 o"ksZ

¶22

4 913_WP_11758_2025

¶23

lsosph vV ykxw jkg.kkj ukgh- vo?kM {ks=krhy fjDr tkxk izkFkE;kus Hkj.ks vko’;d vlY;kus lsokts"Brk fopkjkr ?ksÅu loZlk/kkj.k {ks=kr 10 o"ksZ iw.kZ lsok dsysY;k f’k{kdkauk okLrO; ts"Brsizek.ks vko’;drsuqlkj vo?kM {ks=ke/;s cnyh d:u inLFkkfir dj.;kr ;sbZy ¼VIik dza-7 uqlkj ½- ”

¶24

5 Learned Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4 has placed on record affidavit-in-reply of Ms. Vandana Prabhakar Phutane, Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded and submits that only on the basis of list dated 19.09.2025 the petitioners cannot approach this Court under the writ jurisdiction. The alternate remedy is already provided in the same Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024 in clause No.5.10. A committee has been constituted and the said committee has to consider the representation, if any. She submits that as regards petitioners are concerned, the petitioners’ spouses are working under different establishments. If it is specifically shown that they are entitled for transfer under the head ‘couple convenience’, then the request would be considered by the Committee established under the Government Resolution.

¶25

6 Learned Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4 relies on the order passed in Maharashtra Rajya Shikshak Parishad Prathamik Vibhag vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.11788 of 2025 with companion matters at the Principal Seat of this Court on 23.09.2025, wherein directions have been given and following the same this Court in

¶26

5

¶27

913_WP_11758_2025

¶28

Rohini Suresh Dehadray and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.9080 of 2025 with companion matters on 07.03.2026 has given similar orders.

¶29

7 We have gone through the entire Government Resolution. Certainly, the Government Resolution while channelizing the procedure for transfer of the teachers working under Zilla Parishads has also made arrangement for grievance redressal in Rule No.5.10. The entire procedure was considered by the co-ordinate Bench in Maharashtra Rajya Shikshak Parishad Prathamik Vibhag (supra). 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 petitioners. However, if any teacher/petitioner is aggrieved, he 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.

¶30

8 In view of above, we dispose of the writ petition with following directions :

¶31

a) The petitioners would follow the procedure given in

¶32

6

¶33

913_WP_11758_2025

¶34

Clause No.5.10.1 and make an application to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded, within a period of seven working days from the receipt of order.

¶35

b) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded would verify from the data available and write a concise order, if the application has to be rejected.

¶36

c) Any teacher aggrieved by the order of the Chief Executive Officer 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 said Government Resolution.

¶37

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

¶38

e) The Chief Executive Officer should try to follow the Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024, as far as possible.

¶39

( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. )

¶40

( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )

¶41

agd

Vishal Jakkoji Chavan and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Jakkoji Chavan 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

Genrobotic Innovations Private Limited through Its Authorised Signatory vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Sanjivani Sevabhavi Bahuuddeshiya Society Kurinda and Ors. vs the Union of India Thr. Secretory Ministry of Education Deparment

Balu Maruti Hambarde and Others vs Honble Minister Revenue and Forest Department and Others

Sardar Manjeet Singh Jagan Singh vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bharati Ravindra Kapare and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Rustum Dasrao Rathod and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others