Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shashikant Bapurao Pande, a Junior Clerk employed by respondent no.1, Mahatama Mungsaji Adiwasi Shikshan Sanstha, was initially transferred from Pusad to Dhamangaon on 14.06.2013. He was transferred back to Pusad on 23.06.2014. Subsequently, by an order dated 25.06.2015, he was again transferred from Pusad to Dhamangaon. The petitioner challenged this transfer, arguing that it was periodical and in breach of Rule 41 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. He relied on the judgment in Pawar Bhagwantrao Bhivrao v. Shri Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur and others, 2011 (1) Mh.L.J. 307. The respondent no.1 contended that the transfer was on administrative grounds, as the petitioner had become involved in local politics and was elected as head of a group, leading to negligence in his duties. The court specifically inquired whether the petitioner challenged the transfer on grounds of mala fides, to which the petitioner stated there was no such challenge. The court, after hearing the parties, found that the transfer was not mala fide and was based on administrative exigencies. The court held that the transfer did not violate Rule 41 and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Private School Employee - Rule 41 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - The petitioner, a Junior Clerk, was transferred from Pusad to Dhamangaon for the second time within two years. The court examined whether the transfer was periodical and in breach of Rule 41. The employer justified the transfer on administrative grounds due to the petitioner's involvement in local politics and negligence. The court held that the transfer was not mala fide and was based on administrative exigencies, and thus not in breach of Rule 41. (Paras 2-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer of the petitioner from Pusad to Dhamangaon is in breach of Rule 41 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, and whether the transfer is mala fide.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the transfer was not mala fide and was based on administrative exigencies, and thus not in breach of Rule 41.
Law Points
- Transfer of employee in private school
- Rule 41 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules
- 1981
- Administrative ground
- Mala fides
- Periodical transfer
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (03) 150
Writ Petition No. 3955 of 2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, P.N. Deshmukh
I.N. Chaudhari for Petitioner, Anjan De for Respondent No.1, A.V. Palshikar (A.G.P.) for Respondent No.3
Shashikant s/o Bapurao Pande
Mahatama Mungsaji Adiwasi Shikshan Sanstha, Pusad through its President; Head Master, Mahatama Mungsaji Vidyalaya, Pusad; Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal; Ramesh Vithoba Bhandgar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging transfer order of a Junior Clerk in a private school.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of transfer order dated 25.06.2015 transferring him from Pusad to Dhamangaon.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the transfer was periodical and in breach of Rule 41 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.
Previous Decisions
Petitioner was earlier transferred from Pusad to Dhamangaon on 14.06.2013 and then back to Pusad on 23.06.2014.
Issues
Whether the transfer of the petitioner from Pusad to Dhamangaon is in breach of Rule 41 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981?
Whether the transfer is mala fide?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the transfer was periodical and in breach of Rule 41, relying on Pawar Bhagwantrao Bhivrao v. Shri Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur and others.
Respondent no.1 argued that the transfer was on administrative grounds due to petitioner's involvement in local politics and negligence.
Ratio Decidendi
A transfer order of an employee of a private school, if based on administrative grounds and not mala fide, does not violate Rule 41 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, even if it results in periodical transfers.
Judgment Excerpts
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.
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.
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.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the transfer order dated 25.06.2015. The court heard the parties and delivered judgment on 09.03.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981: Rule 41
