High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 WP / 5117 / 2025 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 5117 OF 2025Imam Bagan Shaikh,Age : 36 years, Occu. : Service,R/o. Mu. Pst. RanisawargaonTq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani and others.. Petitioners VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through the Secretary,Rural Development Department,Maharashtra State, Mumbai and others.. RespondentsANDWRIT PETITION NO. 5122 OF 2025Dattatrya Shivaji Yadav,Age : 37 years, Occu. : Service,R/o. Shiv Parvati, New Barshi Road,Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur and others.. Petitoners VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through the Secretary,Rural Development Department,Maharashtra State, Mumbai and others.. RespondentsANDWRIT PETITION NO. 5134 OF 2025Angad Rukamaji Bahane,Age : 39 years, Occu. : Service,R/o. Ho. No. B/128/1/D/2,Patil Nagar, Basmath Dist. Hingoli, Maharashtra and others.. Petitioners VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through the Secretary,Rural Development Department,Maharashtra State, Mumbai and others.. Respondents
Legal Reasoning
2 WP / 5117 / 2025 + ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 5149 OF 2025Asha Jayram Khade,Age: 39 years, Occu. : Service,R/o. Khadekwadi, Nirgudi,Tq. & Dist. Beed, Maharashtra and others.. Petitioners VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through the Secretary,Rural Development Department,Maharashtra State, Mumbai and others.. Respondents...Advocate for the petitioner in all WPs : Mr. Mayur V. Salunke i/by Salunke Legal LLP Associates and ConsultantsAddl.GP for the respondent – State : Mr. M.M. NerlikarAdvocate for respondent – Zilla Parishad, Hingoli : Mr. S.B. GhuteAdvocate for respondent – Zilla Parishad, Nanded : Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE : 23 APRIL 2025ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :Heard learned advocate Mr. Salunke for the petitioners asalso the learned AGP. 2.The petitioners are serving as teachers in schools beingrun by the Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. Their spouses are also in thesame employment. They have availed the benefit of couple unionscheme and are posted either at the same place or at the places whichare within 30 Km of radius from each other. 3 WP / 5117 / 2025 + 3.The learned advocate submits that superseding all theearlier policies, the Rural Development Department of the governmentof Maharashtra, has issued a government resolution dated 18.06.2024laying down the modalities for effecting transfers of the teachers.Clause no. 1.9 deals with special category of teachers part – 1, whichincludes the couples which at present, are posted at the places morethan 30 Km apart and are regarded as available to derive the benefit ofsuch couple union scheme. He would submit that it is only such of theemployees who are currently posted more than 30 Km apart, are beingtreated specially in clause no. 4.1 and are to be treated as available forbeing transferred at the places within 30 Km of radius.4.He submits that all the petitioners who are also seeking asimilar benefit of the same scheme, are being discriminated only on theground that their current posting is within 30 Km radius from eachother. He would take us through various clauses of governmentresolution dated 18.06.2024 and would submit that such specialteachers part – 1 are made available a different form to fill in, foreffecting transfers through computerized programmed portal but it hasnot been made available to the petitioners who can now merely submitand upload their profile under general category and would be deprivedof a similar benefit, as is available to the special category teacherspart – 1. 4 WP / 5117 / 2025 + 5.Learned AGP Mr. Nerlikar would submit that theapprehension of the petitioners is ill-founded. There is no substance inthe allegations about discrimination. The petitioners do not stand onthe same pedestal as the special category teachers part – 1. Theyconstitute a separate class inasmuch as currently. In spite of therebeing in existence a benevolent policy in the form of couple unionscheme, they have been deprived of the benefit and have been postedat the places which are more than 30 Km apart. They have alreadysuffered and in order to extend the benefit now, they are beingapparently treated differently from the petitioners who unlike thoseother teachers of special category part – 1, are conveniently placedand posted in accordance with that scheme within the radius of30 Kms. He would submit that these are two different classes and thepurpose and object for providing the benefit of couple union scheme issought to be achieved by apparently separating these two classes asthe one which has already derived the benefit and those who aredeprived of such a benefit.6.Incidentally, Mr. Nerlikar would also submit that perusal ofthe entire government resolution dated 18.06.2024 would demonstratethat it is not the object and there is nothing to demonstrate that thepetitioners would not be treated as eligible and entitled to the very 5 WP / 5117 / 2025 + couple union scheme. There is nothing in this government resolution todemonstrate that the scheme would not be applicable to them. Even ifthey are transferred at different places which are more than 30 Kmapart, they can place their representations and seek to derive thebenefit of that scheme.7.Mr. Nerlikar submits that it is a matter of effecting generaltransfer of the teachers throughout the district. It is a matter of manmanagement. There are circumstances and exigencies which have tobe met and the petitioners all the while cannot be posted at the sameplace or within the radius of 30 Kms. It is a matter of implementation ofa scheme and if at all someone is unable to derive the benefit, canalways approach the authorities claiming the benefit. There is nocause of action and petitioners are approaching merely on the basis ofapprehension.8.Having considered the rival submissions and havingperused the papers, one thing needs to be emphasized that this Courtwhile exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia has to be loath in causing interference in matters of transfers ofthe employees, particularly in causing interference in the guidelineswhich are sought to be laid down for bringing in transparency andfairness in the matter of transfers. 6 WP / 5117 / 2025 + 9.With this rider, if one examines the fact situation of thematter in hand, admittedly, the petitioners have already derived thebenefit of couple union scheme and are happily posted for last fewyears at the places which are within the radius of 30 Km from oneanother. As against this, apparently, there are many other employeeswho could not derive this benefit and have been posted at the placesmore than 30 Km apart.10.If one bears in mind this state-of-affairs, in our consideredview, clause no. 1.9 read with clause 4.3 merely seek to achieve someparity between the teachers like the petitioners who have alreadyderived the benefit of the scheme and those who could not do so. Allthese clauses are merely aimed at extending the benefit to such classwho have been deprived of the benefit of the couple union scheme.It is apparent that the object sought to be achieved by incorporatingclause 1.9 and clause 4.3 is to extend such treatment to such class ofthe teachers who are deprived of the benefit of that scheme.11.The petitioners who are happily placed, even now cannotseek to have a similar consideration. If the basic policy, which thelearned advocate for the petitioners, fairly admits, continues toaccommodate the teachers in accordance with the couple unionscheme, having already derived the benefit of the scheme, it would notlie in the mouth of the petitioners to make a grievance if some other 7 WP / 5117 / 2025 + teachers who are not before us, are now being sought to be extendedthat benefit.12.Apart from the fact that it is a matter of policy, which wouldbe applicable across the cadre, merely because the petitioners feelaggrieved by some clauses of the policy, they cannot be heard in alopsided manner behind the back of the other employees, who wouldbe the beneficiaries of such changed policy and are not before us.13.Besides, admittedly, the petitioners are still to betransferred. They would have some cause to agitate if and when theyare posted at places beyond 30 Km radius from each other. From thisangle, there is no immediate cause of action and the petitions areapparently premature.14.In the light of above, for more than one reasons, thepetitions do not deserve any consideration on merits. Those aredismissed. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/