Writ Petition No.5199 of 2009

21st January, 2010

Petitioner Counsel: Shri. ANAND PARCHURE,P. B. PATIL
Respondent Counsel: Smt. B. H. DANGRE

JUDGMENT

S. A. BOBDE, J. :- Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur dated 23.11.2009 dismissing the original application filed by him against the transfer of his services from the post of Lecturer of Music in the Vasantrao Naik Government College of Arts & Social Sciences at Nagpur, to the Government Science College, Aurangabad on administrative grounds. Respondent No.4 has been posted in place of the petitioner. The transfer order is dated 8.10.2008, and the petitioner has continued at Nagpur in view of the interim order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

3. In brief, the petitioner's services have been transferred from the college at Nagpur to the college in Aurangabad and respondent no.4 who is also Senior Lecturer like the petitioner has been transferred to the College at Nagpur in place of the petitioner. Since the transfer order dated 8.10.2008 was made in the middle of the session, the respondent - State sought approval of the competent authority under the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as the Act]. From the note, on which the approval has been granted by the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, the reason for transferring respondent no.4, is that there were as many as 31 complaints for his alleged misbehaviour with women at the college. All the authorities including the approving authority i.e. the Chief Minister have approved the transfer in view of the reasons stated in the said note. In our view, this amounts to compliance with section 4(4) of the Act, which reads as follow :

"4(4) The transfers of Government servants shall ordinarily be made only once in a year in the month of April or May;

Provided that, transfer may be made any time in the year in the circumstances as specified below namely :-

(i) to the newly created post or to the post which become vacant due to retirement, promotion, resignation, reversion, reinstatement, consequential vacancy on account of transfer or on return from leave;

(ii) where the competent authority is satisfied that the transfer is essential due to exceptional circumstances or special reasons, after recording the same in writing and with the prior approval of the next higher authority."

4. Shri. Parchure, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been very recently promoted as a Senior Lecturer in 2007 and therefore his posting at Nagpur may be taken to be from 2007 ignoring his posting as a Junior Lecturer at Nagpur. It is not possible to accept this argument in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner has been functioning as a Junior College Teacher at Nagpur from 2002. Though argued on behalf of the petitioner, we do not agree that the tenure should be treated as having been commenced from the date of promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer. In our view the petitioner as a Lecturer has been occupying one post whether as a Junior or a Senior Lecturer, has been occupying one post within the definition of section 2(g) of the Act, which reads as follows :

"2(g) "post" means the job or seat of duty to which a Government servant is assigned or posted."

It may mean either the job or the seat of duty, such as the Institution at which a Government Servant is posted. In the present case the seat of duty, must be read as the place of posting to which the petitioner was assigned, such as College at Nagpur in this case. In these circumstances we find no error of law in the impugned order of the Tribunal which is based on a specific finding that, after going through entire record of the case that though impugned order has been issued in the middle of the year, the procedure laid down by law has been followed by the authorities. Shri. Parchure, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested for continuation of the petitioner at Nagpur till the end of academic session.

5. Learned Additional Government Pleader categorically submitted that one academic session has come to an end, when transfer order could not be given effect because of the interim order by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. She further submitted that respondent no.4 has already been posted from Aurangabad to Nagpur and in fact the status-quo order obtained by him from the Tribunal at Aurangabad has recently been vacated and the respondent no.4 is due to join at Nagpur. It is therefore, not possible to accept this request on behalf of the petitioner.

6. In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Petition is dismissed. Needless to say, petitioner is at liberty to make such a representation as may be advised in respect of his transfer and posting to the government.

Petition dismissed.