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 without impleading the petitioner. The Tribunal granted stay and eventually set aside the transfer of respondent no.3 as illegal. However, the Tribunal did not pass any order regarding the petitioner's waiting period at Nagpur or his further posting. The petitioner then applied to be joined as a party and later filed the present writ petition seeking a direction for his posting. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Tribunal was not required to pass an order regarding the petitioner's posting since the petitioner was not a party to the original application and the relief sought was only against the transfer of respondent no.3. The court observed that where and when a government servant should be posted is an administrative matter and the Tribunal had no occasion to consider the petitioner's posting.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Transfer - Posting - 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 or 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 had no occasion to consider the petitioner's posting since the petitioner was not a party to the original application and the relief sought was only against the transfer of respondent no.3. (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 since the petitioner was not a party to the original application and the relief sought was only against the transfer of respondent no.3.
Law Points
- Transfer order
- Administrative Tribunal
- Posting
- Party not impleaded
- Relief
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 465
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 from the High Court for his posting after the Tribunal set aside the transfer of respondent no.3.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was transferred from Gadchiroli to Nagpur and relieved, but due to the stay granted by the Tribunal on the transfer of respondent no.3, the petitioner had to wait at Nagpur without posting. The Tribunal eventually set aside the transfer of respondent no.3 but did not pass any order regarding the petitioner's posting.
Previous Decisions
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal set aside the transfer of respondent no.3 as illegal but did not pass any order regarding the petitioner's waiting period or further 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
An administrative tribunal is not required to pass an order regarding the posting of a government servant who was not a party to the proceedings and whose posting was not the subject matter of the relief sought.
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 without impleading the petitioner. The Tribunal granted stay and eventually set aside the transfer of respondent no.3. The petitioner applied to be joined as a party. The Tribunal did not pass any order regarding the petitioner's posting. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985:
