← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/108/2021disposed off

Sandip Dnyaneshwar Panhale v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

2021-02-25Hon'Ble Shri Justice Surendra Pandharinath Tavade,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S.C. Gupte2 pages

20. WP 108 of 2021.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 108 OF 2021 Sandip Dnyaneshwar Panhale

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

...Respondents

---------- Rahul S. Kadam - Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N. C. Walimbe - AGP for the Respondent/State ---------- CORAM : S. C. GUPTE AND SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ.

DATE : 25 FEBRUARY 2021.

P.C. :

1.

The subject matter of challenge in the present petition concerns approval for the Petitioner'

s appointment as an '

Assistant Teacher' in Respondent No. 2-School. The school, known as 'Shitaleshwar Vidyamandir'

, Shitewadi, Taluka Junnar, is run by '

Vighnar Dalit Sarwangin Vikas Mandal'

. This trust has another school at Khamgaon, i.e. New English School Khamgaon, Taluka Junnar. The Petitioner was originally working in the former school in an un-aided post. As a result of vacancy having arisen in New English School, Khamgaon, in an aided post, the Petitioner was transferred as the Senior-most teacher Seema 1/2

20. WP 108 of 2021.odt working in an un-aided post under the same institution. The proposal for approval to the Petitioner'

s transfer, submitted by the School Management, has been rejected by Respondent No.2 -Education Officer, purportedly on the ground of Government Resolution dated 04.05.2020.

2.

The Government Resolution dated 04.05.2020 inter alia forbids transfers in Government departments on account of the need felt for maintaining uniformity of measures initiated for dealing with Covid-19 pandemic.

3.

We are at a loss to appreciate how this Government Resolution can possibly be invoked for denying approval to the Petitioner's transfer. The Petitioner was working in an un-aided post under the same institution and was transferred to an aided post in the same locality. The impugned rejection is, thus, exfacie untenable. 4.

The impugned order passed by Respondent No. 2 is, accordingly, quashed and set aside and Respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the proposal for approval to the Petitioner' s transfer a fresh and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of six weeks from today.

5.

The petition is disposed of in above terms.

[SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.] [S. C. GUPTE, J.] Seema 2/2