Sangameshwar Govind Shinde And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
2026:BHC-AUG:4817-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 17 WRIT PETITION NO.14895 OF 2025 1.
Sangameshwar Govind Shinde 2.
Sunanda Hiralal Rathod 3.
Sharda Narsing Gaikwad 4.
Kavita Pandurang Suryavanshi 5.
Gajanan Shadakshari Swami 6.
Shilpa Umakant Raiphalle .. Petitioners
Versus
1.
The State Of Maharashtra Through, Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya-32.
2.
The Deputy Director of Education, Region Latur, Gandhi Chowk, Latur.
3.
The Chief Executive Officer, Z. P. Latur, Z. P. Office, Latur.
4.
The Education Officer (Primary), Latur, Z. P. Latur, Near Shivaji Chowk, Latur.
.. Respondents ...
Ms. Pooja Apache h/f Mr. R. D. Biradar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State. ...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATE : 02 FEBRUARY 2026 [1]
ORDER :
.
Present petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the transfer and relieving orders dated 22.08.2025 issued by respondent No.3, which are stated to be in violation of norms/parameters laid down in Government policy in Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024 and to direct respondent No.3 to decide the respective representations of the petitioners.
2.
Heard learned Advocate Ms. Pooja Apache holding for learned Advocate Mr. R. D. Biradar for the petitioners. 3.
The petitioner No.1 was working at Zilla Parishad Primary School, Mohdal, Taluka Chakur, District Latur, petitioner No.2 was working at Zilla Parishad Primary School, Vijaynagar, Kasarjawala, Taluka Katgaon, District Latur, petitioner No.3 was working at Zilla Parishad Primary School, Akharvali, Taluka and District Latur, petitioner No.4 was working at Zilla Parishad Primary School, Jogala, Shirur Anantpal, District Latur, petitioner No.5 was working in Zilla Parishad High School at Dawangaon, Taluka Udgir, District Latur and petitioner No.6 was working in Zilla Parishad Primary School, Helamb, Taluka Deoni, District Latur. Now, by transfer orders dated 22.08.2025, the petitioners have been transferred to various schools. As per transfer orders, the distance between the [2]
petitioners and their spouses are more than 30 to 81 kilometers respectively. According to the petitioners, by virtue of Government Resolutions dated 07.04.2021 and 18.06.2024, when the husband and wife both are teachers and one may not be the Zilla Parishad Employee, yet the Zilla Parishad employee teacher has to be placed within the radius of 30 kilometers from the place of service of her or his spouse. According to the petitioners, the distance between the places where they have been posted and the places where their spouses are working, is more than 30 to 81 kilometers respectively and, therefore, it is in violation of those Government Resolutions. Hence, this petition. 4.
The first and the foremost fact that is required to be noted is that as the petitioners were eligible for transfers, as they had served the mandatory period at their earlier places, they have been transferred. They have not stated as to whether when they were required to give options, when online information was supplied; they had given the options of their respective primary school. But the impugned orders dated 22.08.2025 specifically mention that they had given the option of the respective primary schools, where they have been transferred. Thus, their transfers are at a place of their choice and therefore, now they cannot say that the said places are inconvenient to them. Secondly, they have not given as to whether now there are vacancies within the radius of [3]
30 kilometers from the places, where their spouses are serving and, therefore, we do not find any merit in the present petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed, however, if at all, there would be vacancies those would arise in future within the radius of 30 kilometers from the respective places, where the spouses of the petitioners are serving, then the petitioners would be at liberty to make representations to respondent No.3.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE scm [4]