Tabssum Usman Patel v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

Shailaja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11558 OF 2025 Tabassum Usman Patel ] Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, ] Urban & Rural Development Department ] Mantralaya, Mumbai and another ] Respondents .....

Mr. Datta Pawar, for Petitioner.

Mr. V.M. Mali, A.G.P, for Respondent - State. .....

CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ DATE : 7th OCTOBER, 2025.

ORAL ORDER: [PER M.S. KARNIK, J.]:

1.

Heard Mr. Pawar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mali, learned A.G.P, for respondent - State.

2.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Husband Wife Transfer Scheme of Teachers, distance between spouse should not be more than 30 km, however, in the present matter, the said rule is violated and the petitioner has been transferred 120 k.m away. SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE SHRIKANT HALKUDE Date: 2025.10.08 11:41:07 +0530

3.

This Court on 1st October, 2025 disposed of Writ Petition No.11328 of 2025 (Seema Sudhir Khot Versus The State of Maharashtra and others) observing thus;

"1.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad has been duly served by private notice.

2.

Learned A.G.P. placed on record a copy of Order dated 23rd September 2025 passed in Writ Petition No.11788 of 2025 (Maharashtra Rajya Shikshak Parishad Prathamik Vibhag Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and other connected Writ Petitions, by the Principal Seat of this Court. Upon considering the various clauses of the Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 18th June 2024, the Principal Seat of this Court has disposed of the Writ Petitions with the following directions.

"9. In view of the above, all these Writ Petitions are disposed off with the following directions :- a] The aggrieved Petitioner would follow the procedure in Clause No.5.10.1 and make an application to the CEO of the respective Zilla Parishads, within a period of seven working days from today.

b] The concerned CEO would verify from the data available and write a concise order if the application has to be rejected. c] Any teacher aggrieved by the order of the CEO would be at liberty to strictly follow Clause No.5.10.2. The further process shall be governed by the clauses reproduced above below Clause No.5.10.

d] Until the CEO decides the representation, the order passed earlier that the Petitioner should not be relieved, would continue to protect such Petitioner, till the decision of the CEO."

3. This Court had also in para No. 10 of the said order made the following observations and issued certain directions to the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department. Para No.10 of the said order reads thus :

"10. Considering the peculiar situation that emerges from such Petitions, we would expect the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, since he is said to be the person who is monitoring all the Zilla Parishad teaching and nonteaching employees, to apply his mind to the present situation and issue appropriate directions to ensure that in future such a situation would not occur from the academic year 2026-2027. He would also issue appropriate directives in the light of his similar directives issued earlier on 7th November, 2024, through the Rural Development Department addressed to all the CEOs of the Zilla Parishads, under the signature of Mr. Nitin S. Pawar, the then Desk Officer, Government of Maharashtra."

4.

In this view of the matter, the present Petition can be disposed of by issuing following directions;

(a) The Petitioner to follow the procedure in Clause No.5.10.1 and make an application to the C.E.O. of the Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, within a period of seven working days from today.

(b) The concerned C.E.O. would verify from the date available and write a concise order if the application has to be rejected.

(c) If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the C.E.O., the Petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse with the Redressal Mechanism provided in Clause No. 5.10.2. (d) The further process shall be in terms of the directions issued by the Principal Seat of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11788 of 2025.

(e) Until the C.E.O. decides the representation, the Petitioner should not be relieved.

4.

The Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH. J.] [M.S. KARNIK, J.]