Dr. Ranjana Naik v. Deccan Education Society & Ors.

Ms. Usha Beri i/b. M/s. Mihir Desai & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Y. D. Borwankar for Respondent No.1. Mr. Milind More, A.G.P. for Respondent No. 5. .... .... CORAM : D. K. DESHMUKH AND SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATED : JULY 29, 2010. P.C. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

Names of respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 are permitted to be deleted.

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order issued by respondent no. 1 transferring the services of the petitioner as 2 wpl1373-10 a lecturer from Kirti M. Doongursee College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Dadar, Mumbai to Willingdon College, Sangli. Both these institutions are conducted by respondent no. 1 but are affiliated to different universities. The challenged by the petitioner is that transfer from one college to the other is not one of her condition of service either because of the provisions contained in the University Act, 1994, Statute, Ordinance, Regulations and Rules framed thereunder or because of any appointment order issued by her employer, the respondent no.1. In short, the contention of the petitioner is that the order of transfer is without authority of law.

Respondent no. 1 has filed reply. According to respondent no.1 as per the appointment order of the petitioner conditions of her service are also governed by the Rules of the Governing Body of the Deccan Education Society, Pune. Respondent no. 1 relies on Rule 16 of the Rules of the Deccan Education Society, Pune, Rule 16 reads as under :

The Governing Body exists for the special purpose of maintaining discipline and controlling education in the Society's institutions. It shall make all appointments in the Society's Schools and Colleges, award punishments, 3 wpl1373-10 promotions, direct transfers and retirements, and grant leave and extensions of service; and in all these matters and any other matters relating to discipline and education its powers are absolute.

It is submitted that because that rule gives powers to the Governing Body to transfer, it is entitled to transfer all the employees. In our opinion, perusal of the appointment order dated 13th September, 1989, itself shows that the conditions of the service of the petitioner are governed by the University Act, Statute, Ordinance, Regulations and Rules framed thereunder. They are also governed by the Rules of the Governing Body of the Deccan Education Society, Pune. We have not been shown any provisions or the statutes, ordinance, rules framed under the University Act which make the petitioner liable for transfer from one college to the other. Rule 16 on which reliance is placed and which has been quoted above also does not make any employee liable for transfer. By virtue of that Rule gives power to the management to effect transfer if the conditions of the service of the employee includes transfer as one of the condition of the service. As neither the appointment order nor the Statues of the University, nor any other provisions of law permit transfer of the petitioner, in our opinion, respondent No.1 was not justified and has no power to transfer the petitioner. The order dated 29th May, 2010, is, therefore, set aside. 4 wpl1373-10

Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. D. K. DESHMUKH, J.