Shashikant Vs. Mahatama Mungsaji Adiwasi Shikshan Sanstha and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1184963
CourtMumbai Nagpur High Court
Decided OnMar-09-2016
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 3955 of 2015
JudgeB.P. Dharmadhikari &Amp; P.N. Deshmukh
AppellantShashikant
RespondentMahatama Mungsaji Adiwasi Shikshan Sanstha and Others
Excerpt:
oral judgment: (b.p. dharmadhikari, j.) 1. heard shri i.n. chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner, shri anjan de, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and shri a.v. palshikar, learned a.g.p. for respondent no.3. 2. petitioner, a junior clerk in the employment of respondent no.1 was transferred earlier from headquarter pusad to dhamangaon on 14.06.2013. by order dated 23.06.2014, he has been transferred back from dhamangaon to pusad. by the impugned order dated 25.06.2015, he has been transferred again from pusad to dhamangaon. 3. shri chaudhari, learned counsel submits that this shows periodical transfer and hence, is in breach of rule 41 of the maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) rules, 1981. he is relying upon the observations of this court in judgment reported at 2011 (1) mh.l.j. 307 (pawar bhagwantrao bhivrao vs. shri swami vivekanand shikshan sanstha, kolhapur and others). 4. shri anjan de, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 is relying upon reply affidavit as also additional submissions filed today to urge that transfer is on administrative ground. 5. shri palshikar, learned a.g.p. points out that it is a dispute between a private management and its employee. 6. the employer has pointed out that after his transfer back to pusad vide order dated 23.06.2014, the petitioner has indulged into local politics and has also been elected as head of some group. he therefore was not in a position to pay attention towards his duties. because of this involvement and resulting negligence, management has thought it fit to transfer him to dhamangaon. he submits that pusad is headquarter of the institution and work there requires constant attention. 7. in this background, we have specifically enquired from the petitioner whether there is any challenge to the impugned transfer on the ground of mala fides. the petitioner has stated that there is no such challenge. 8. perusal of rule 41 of the 1981 rules shows that management conducting more than one school has been asked not to transfer any of its employees, except on administrative ground. division bench of this court in paragraph no.5 of the judgment (supra), has found that rule 41 impliedly prohibits framing of any policy by management to periodically transfer its staff and such a policy would be contrary to the language and spirit of rule 41. 9. here, petitioner has not proved that management has any policy to periodically transfer the employees. management has assigned a reason for its decision and validity thereof is not in dispute before us. in this situation, we cannot hold that transfer is not on account of administrative reason. no case is made out warranting intervention. writ petition is accordingly rejected. no costs.
Judgment:

Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)

1. Heard Shri I.N. Chaudhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anjan De, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri A.V. Palshikar, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3.

2. Petitioner, a Junior Clerk in the employment of respondent no.1 was transferred earlier from headquarter Pusad to Dhamangaon on 14.06.2013. By order dated 23.06.2014, he has been transferred back from Dhamangaon to Pusad. By the impugned order dated 25.06.2015, he has been transferred again from Pusad to Dhamangaon.

3. Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel submits that this shows periodical transfer and hence, is in breach of Rule 41 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. He is relying upon the observations of this Court in judgment reported at 2011 (1) Mh.L.J. 307 (Pawar Bhagwantrao Bhivrao vs. Shri Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur and others).

4. Shri Anjan De, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 is relying upon reply affidavit as also additional submissions filed today to urge that transfer is on administrative ground.

5. Shri Palshikar, learned A.G.P. points out that it is a dispute between a private management and its employee.

6. The employer has pointed out that after his transfer back to Pusad vide order dated 23.06.2014, the petitioner has indulged into local politics and has also been elected as head of some group. He therefore was not in a position to pay attention towards his duties. Because of this involvement and resulting negligence, management has thought it fit to transfer him to Dhamangaon. He submits that Pusad is headquarter of the Institution and work there requires constant attention.

7. In this background, we have specifically enquired from the petitioner whether there is any challenge to the impugned transfer on the ground of mala fides. The petitioner has stated that there is no such challenge.

8. Perusal of Rule 41 of the 1981 Rules shows that management conducting more than one school has been asked not to transfer any of its employees, except on administrative ground. Division Bench of this Court in paragraph no.5 of the judgment (supra), has found that Rule 41 impliedly prohibits framing of any policy by management to periodically transfer its staff and such a policy would be contrary to the language and spirit of Rule 41.

9. Here, petitioner has not proved that management has any policy to periodically transfer the employees. Management has assigned a reason for its decision and validity thereof is not in dispute before us. In this situation, we cannot hold that transfer is not on account of administrative reason. No case is made out warranting intervention. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. No costs.