Dismissed¶21

Swati Baburao Dande v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC2 Feb 2026WP/14862/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Teacher transfer challenge; spouse posting; 30 kilometre radius norm; Government Resolution dated 07.04.2021; Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024; Zilla Parishad Primary School Helamb Taluka Deoni District Latur; Sangram Smarak Vidyalaya Udgir; transfer and relieving order dated 22.08.2025; option exercised by petitioner; representation dated 11.11.2025; writ petition dismissed with liberty for future vacancy; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; Swati Baburao Dande v. State of Maharashtra; 2026:BHC-AUG:4815-DB.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed. Petitioner at liberty to make a representation to respondent No.3 if a vacancy arises in future within the 30-kilometre radius of Udgir. ¶21

Swati Baburao Dande vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed. Petitioner at liberty to make a representation to respondent No.3 if a vacancy arises in future within the 30-kilometre radius of Udgir.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's transfer to Helamb, Taluka Deoni, District Latur - 42 kilometres from her husband's place of service at Udgir - violates the norm in Government Resolutions dated 07.04.2021 and 18.06.2024 requiring a Zilla Parishad employee teacher to be placed within a 30-kilometre radius of the spouse's place of service. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 22.08.2025 itself specifically records that the petitioner had given the option of Zilla Parishad Primary School, Helamb, Taluka Deoni, District Latur.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Since the transfer was to a place of the petitioner's own choice, she cannot now contend that the said place is inconvenient to her.

¶21

Key takeaways

The petitioner did not show that any vacancy exists within the 30-kilometre radius of Udgir, where her husband is serving; therefore the Court found no merit in the petition.ratio¶21
If a vacancy arises in future within the 30-kilometre radius of Udgir, the petitioner will be at liberty to make a representation to respondent No.3.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Swati Baburao Dande v. The State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No.14862 of 2025 (Bombay HC, Aurangabad Bench; Kankanwadi & Venegavkar, JJ.; 02.02.2026; neutral citation 2026:BHC-AUG:4815-DB) - Dismissed. A Zilla Parishad primary teacher transferred by order dated 22.08.2025 from Dongraj Chakur to Helamb, Taluka Deoni, Dist. Latur (42 km from her husband's workplace at Sangram Smarak Vidyalaya, Udgir) challenged the transfer as violative of the 30-km spouse-proximity norm in Government Resolutions dated 07.04.2021 and 18.06.2024. Held: the impugned order records that Helamb was the petitioner's own option, so the transfer was to a place of her choice and cannot be attacked as inconvenient; nor did she show any existing vacancy within 30 km of Udgir. Liberty reserved to represent respondent No.3 upon any future vacancy within the 30-km radius of Udgir.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:4815-DB

¶2

16-wp-14862-2025.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

16 WRIT PETITION NO.14862 OF 2025

¶5

Swati Baburao Dande

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶8

Ms. Pooja Apache h/f Mr. R. D. Biradar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondents/State.

¶9

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

¶10

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 02 FEBRUARY 2026

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

. Present petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the transfer and relieving order dated 22.08.2025 issued by respondent No.3, which is stated to be in violation of norms/parameters laid down in Government policy in Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024 and to direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 to decide the representation dated 11.11.2025.

¶14

Heard learned Advocate Ms. Pooja Apache holding for learned Advocate Mr. R. D. Biradar for the petitioner.

¶15

[1]

¶16

16-wp-14862-2025.odt

¶17

The petitioner was working at Zilla Parishad Primary School, Dongraj Chakur, Taluka and District Latur. She states that her husband is working at Sangram Smarak Vidyalaya, Udgir, District Latur. Now, by transfer order dated 22.08.2025, the petitioner has been transferred to Helamb, Taluka Deoni, District Latur. According to the petitioner, by virtue of Government Resolution dated 07.04.2021 and 18.06.2024, when the husband and wife both are teachers and one may not be the Zilla Parishad Employee, yet the Zilla Parishad employee teacher has to be placed within the radius of 30 kilometers from the place of service of her or his spouse. According to the petitioner, the distance between the place where she has been posted and the place where her husband is working is 42 kilometers and, therefore, it is in violation of those Government Resolutions. Hence, this petition.

¶18

The first and the foremost fact that is required to be noted is that as the petitioner was eligible for transfer, as she had served the mandatory period at her earlier place, she has been transferred. She has not stated as to whether when she was required to give options, when online information was supplied; she had given the option of Zilla Parishad Primary School, Helamb, Taluka Deoni, District Latur. But the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 specifically mentions that she had given the option of Zilla Parishad Primary School, Helamb, Taluka Deoni,

¶19

[2]

¶20

16-wp-14862-2025.odt

¶21

District Latur. Thus, her transfer is at a place of her choice and therefore, now she cannot say that the said place is inconvenient to her. Secondly, she has not given as to whether now there is a vacancy within the radius of 30 kilometers from Udgir, where her husband is serving and, therefore, we do not find any merit in the present petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed , however, if at all, there would be a vacancy that will arise in future within the radius of 30 kilometers from Udgir, then she would be at liberty to make representation to respondent No.3.

¶22

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

¶23

scm

¶24

[3]

Swati Baburao Dande v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swati Baburao Dande v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devidas Madhavrao Halde vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Dr Shivkumar Govindrao Survase vs The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Medical Education and Drug Department

Pranil Sharanappa Nagure and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Remesh Namdeo Khilare vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pratibha Ramesh Bari vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pradeep Dattatray Gadekar and Others vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others