Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sanjaykumar Sukhlalji Dahiwale, was a Deputy Director of Social Forestry who was transferred from Gadchiroli to Nagpur. Consequent to this transfer, respondent no.3, Shrikrishna Sukhdeo Patil, was transferred from Nagpur. Respondent no.3 challenged his transfer before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which granted a stay and eventually set aside the transfer order, holding it illegal. However, the Tribunal did not pass any order regarding the petitioner's waiting period at Nagpur or his further posting. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking a direction that the Tribunal ought to have passed orders regarding his posting. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Tribunal was not required to pass such an order because the posting of a government servant is an administrative matter and the Tribunal's jurisdiction was confined to the challenge against the transfer order of respondent no.3. The court observed that there was no reason for the Tribunal to have passed an order regarding the petitioner's posting.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Transfer - Posting of Government Servant - Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - The Tribunal set aside the transfer of respondent no.3 but did not pass any order regarding the petitioner's waiting period and further posting. The High Court held that the Tribunal was not required to pass such an order as the posting of a government servant is an administrative matter and the Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to the challenge against the transfer order. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal ought to have passed an order regarding the petitioner's posting after setting aside the transfer of respondent no.3.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Tribunal was not required to pass an order regarding the petitioner's posting as it was an administrative matter and the Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to the challenge against the transfer order of respondent no.3.
Law Points
- Transfer order
- Administrative Tribunal
- Posting of government servant
- Scope of Tribunal's order
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 273
Writ Petition No.4214 of 2009
S.A. Bobde, Smt. Vasanti A. Naik
Ku. K. Pathak for petitioner, Mrs. S.S. Wandile for respondent nos.1 and 2, Shri N.C. Phadnis for respondent no.3
Sanjaykumar Sukhlalji Dahiwale
The State of Maharashtra, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Nagpur, and Shrikrishna Sukhdeo Patil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which set aside the transfer of respondent no.3 but did not pass any order regarding the petitioner's posting.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a direction that the Tribunal ought to have passed orders regarding his posting after setting aside the transfer of respondent no.3.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was transferred from Gadchiroli to Nagpur and respondent no.3 was transferred from Nagpur. Respondent no.3 challenged his transfer before the Tribunal, which set it aside but did not pass any order regarding the petitioner's waiting period and further posting.
Previous Decisions
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal set aside the transfer order of respondent no.3 but did not pass any order regarding the petitioner's posting.
Issues
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal ought to have passed an order regarding the petitioner's posting after setting aside the transfer of respondent no.3.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner's counsel submitted that the Tribunal ought to have passed orders in respect of the petitioner's posting.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal is not required to pass an order regarding the posting of a government servant whose transfer was set aside, as posting is an administrative matter and the Tribunal's jurisdiction is confined to the challenge against the transfer order.
Judgment Excerpts
We see no reason why such order should have been passed by the Tribunal since where and when a particular Government servant should be posted is a matter of administration.
Procedural History
The petitioner was transferred from Gadchiroli to Nagpur. Respondent no.3 challenged his transfer before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the transfer order. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking a direction regarding his posting.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985:
