IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. / 2008
DISTRICT: HINGOLI
In the matter of Article 14 &
226of the Constitution of India
AND
In the matter of Provisions of
various Government
Resolutions regarding transfer
of Zilha Parishad employees.
AND
In the matter of posting of
Respondent No. 3 as
Education Extension Officer
with Panchayat Samiti
Vasmat since last 9 Years.
 Jeevan s/o Murlidharrao Andhare
Age 30 Yrs. Occu. Social Worker
R/o Rokdeshwar nagar,
Bahirji college road, Vasmat,
Taluka Vasmat, Dist. Hingoli.
………. Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra,

Through Its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2. The Chief Executive Officer,

Zilha Parishad, Hingoli.

3. Tanaji s/o Gangadharrao Bhosale

Age 39 years, Occu. Service as
Education Extension Officer,
Panchayat Samiti at Vasmat,
Taluka Vasmat, Dist. Hingoli. ………… Respondents

TO,
THE HONOURABVLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
OTHER PUSINE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT
OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCHE
AT AURANGABAD.
 THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONER ABOVENAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

The petitioner states that, he is a citizen of India

and ordinary resident of address mentioned in title
clause of the petition. Being a citizen of India, the
petitioner enjoys fundamental rights and guarantees
enshrined under the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner submits that, by way of this Writ

Petition he is making grievance regarding posting of
Respondent No. 3 herein on the post of Education
Extension Officer with Panchayat Samiti Vasmat
since last Nine years. The petitioner further submits
that, the present petition is being filed in the interest
of public, as the Respondent No. 3 herein is not
working on the above post properly and though he
was transferred from the said post on earlier three
occasions. He managed to get cancelled the said
transfer order by using his political influence. The
petitioner says and submits that, he is not having any
personal interest in the matter.

3. The petitioner states that, the Respondent No. 1 is

the State of Maharashtra represented through its
concern department, whereas the Respondent No.2
is the Chief Executive Officer of Zilha Parishad under
whom the Respondent No. 3 is working. The
Respondent No. 3 is the person, who is working as
an Education Extension Officer since last 9 years
 with the Panchayat Samiti Vasmat. The petitioner is
having grievance against above referred
Respondents therefore they are made part to this
petition. They being amenable to the writ jurisdiction
of this Honourable Court, the petitioner is seeking
appropriate order or direction from this Honourable
Court on the following set of facts and
circumstances.

4. The petitioner is a social worker and working as a

representative of various social workers or
organizations functioning in Hingoli District. The
petitioner states that, the Respondent No. 3 is
working as an Education Extension Officer with the
Vasmat Panchayat Samiti since from the year 1997-
98. As such, while working on the said post, various
complaints were made against him concerning
political activities. On the basis of said complaint,
penalty of stopping his one increment was imposed.

5. The petitioner further says and submits the,

considering the complaints made against the
Respondent No.3, regarding his conduct and
functioning, the Respondent No. 3 was transferred in
the year 2006, 2007 and recently in the year 2008.
However surprisingly on aforesaid three occasions
the Respondent No. 3 by using his political influence,
managed to cancel his transfer order.

6. The petitioner submits that, considering the political

activities, undertaken by Respondent No. 3 by
 ignoring his statutory duties, one Smt. Rajabai
Jadhav, member of Panchayat Samiti Vasmat had
made various representations to Respondent No. 2
Chief Executive Officer Hingoli, Honourable
Education Minister, Maharashtra State, Honourable
Lokayukta, Maharashtra State and the Education
Secretary, Maharashtra State, stating in detail the
complaint of Resp. No.3 with the request that, the
Respondent No. 3 be transferred from the post of
Education Extension Officer Vasmat to some other
place, since the Respondent No. 3 was due for
transfer and is not discharging his duties properly at
Vasmat.
The copies of Representations dated 2-5-2008
and 17-4-2008 made by Smt. Rajabai Jadhav,
Member of Panchayt Samiti regarding transfer of
Respondent No. 3 are annexed herewith and marked
as Exhibit A Collectively.

7. The petitioner submits that, considering the political

activities, undertaken by Respondent No. 3 the
petitioner and some other persons had made
representations to Resp. No. 2 Chief Executive
Officer, Collector Hingoli, Hon’ble Education Minister,
Hon’ble Rural Development Minister, The Education
Secretary, Maharashtra State and also to the
Divisional Commissioner at Aurangabad. Pursuant to
various representations made by petitioner and
Rajabai Jadhav Member of Panchayat Samiti
Vasmat, the Collector Hingoli had asked the
Respondent No. 2 to take proper action. However the
 Respondent No. 2 has not taken any steps so as to
take note of representations made by petitioner and
others.
The copies of representations dated and 30-5-
2008 petitioner and the copy of communication dated
3-6-2008 made by District Collector Hingoli to the
Respondent No. 2 is annexed herewith and marked
as Exhibit B Collectively.

8. The petitioner says and submits that, ordinarily a

Zilha Parishad employee should not be allowed to
remain on a particular post for indefinite period.
Especially where there are complaints against the
particular employee regarding functioning of his duty.
He should be transferred from that place. In the
present case considering the various complaints
made against Respondent No. 3 pertaining to
improper discharge of his duties, the Respondent No.
3 was transferred on three occasions. However, the
Respondent No. 3 managed to get cancelled the said
transfer order by using political influence. In that view
of the matter it is desirable from the Respondent
authorities to take appropriate steps regarding
transfer of Respondent No. 3 as he is not discharging
his duties properly at Vasmat since the Respondent
No. 3 has completed long span as an Education
Extension Officer at Vasmat.

9. The petitioner says and submits that, the

Respondent No. 3 is taking active participation in the
local politics, which is not expected from a Zilha
 Parishad employee, who is suppose to devote his
time for discharging his duties. Therefore, the
complainants were made against him to the higher
authorities with a request that, he should be
transferred from the post of Education Extension
Officer Vasmet. However the authorities have not
taken any steps, so as to effect the transfer of
Respondent No. 3.

10. The petitioner submits that, the Respondent No. 3 is

indulging various illegalities, he is taking active
participation in local political activities, which are
specifically pointed out in the representations made
by petitioner to the authorities. The authorities are
expected to make an enquiry against the
Respondent No.3 and take steps to transfer the
Respondent No.3. However the authorities are not
taking any steps, which is not legal and proper.
Hence the interference of this High Court in
exercising of its extra ordinary jurisdiction is called for
in the interest of justice.
The copy of news published in the news paper
with photograph of respondent No. 3 and copy of
separate affidavit of petitioner is annexed herewith
and marked as “Exhibit C collectively”.

11. The petitioner submits that, it would not be out of

place to mention that, the new enactment namely
The Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation
of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of
Official Duties Act 2005 provides that, a Government
 Servant who has completed Three years of service at
particular post is to be transferred to some other
place. The Government has passed one resolution
on 30-4-2008 for implementation of Government
policy regarding transfer of class-3, class4
employees. In the resolution the guidelines for
transfer of class-3, class4 employees are given in the
First Annexure. Guidelines No. 15 specifically states
about transfer of Education Extension Officer/Circle
Head and Headmasters in the Panchayat Samiti,
thereby it is specifically stated that, after completion
of five years service of above employees the
permission should be given on the administrative
ground to transfer such employees in another
Panchayat Samiti. The reasons behind making of
such transfers are many. Therefore since the
Respondent No. 3 has completed 9 years service as
Education Extension Office at Panchayat Samiti
Vasmat, he must be transferred, more so there are
various complainants regarding illegal and improper
functioning of Respondent No.3 on the post of
Education Extension Officer at Vasmat.
The copy of Government Resolution dated 30-4-
2008 is annexed herewith and marked as “Exhibit
D”.

12. The petitioner says and submits that, in view of

above facts, circumstances and submissions, it can
be seen that, the inaction/non-action on the part of
Respondents make transfer of Respondent No.3
from the post of Education Extension Officer
 Panchayat Samiti Vasmat is absolutely illegal and
improper. Hence, interference from this High Court in
exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction is called for
in the interest of justice.

13. The petitioner submits that, there is no other

efficacious and proper remedy available to the
petitioner except this Writ Petition.

14. The petitioner craves leave to add, amend, alter and

modify any of the grounds of this writ petition with the
prior permission of this Honourable Court.

15. That, other points will be advanced at the time final

Hearing.

16. That, the petitioner has not filed any other appeal,
application or Writ Petition before any court touching
the subject matter of this writ petition except this Writ
Petition.

17. The petitioner has not received any notice of caveat

from the respondent till today.
 THE PETITIONER THEREFORE PRAYS THAT,

A) This Writ Petition may kindly be allowed.

B) By issuing appropriate Writ, order or directions, the

Respondent No. 2 be directed to transfer the
Respondent No. 3 from the post of Education
Extension Officer, Panchayat Samiti Vasmat to some
other place

C) By issuing further writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ, order or directions the Respondent
No. 2 be directed to make an enquiry against the
Respondent No. 3 regarding discharge of his duties,
for that purpose necessary directions be issued.

D) Any other relief to which the petitioner is found

entitled in the facts and circumstance of the present
case, may kindly be granted in favour of the
petitioner.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF JUSTICE AND

KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL
EVER DUTY BOUND TO PARAY.

Date: 16-6-2008 SUNTOSH B PULKUNDWAR

Place: Aurangabad Advocate for the Petitioner.
 VERIFICATION

I Jeevan s/o Murlidharrao Andhare Age 30 Yrs. Occu.

Social Worker R/o Rokdeshwar Nagar, Bahirji college
road, Vasmat, Taluka Vasmat, Dist. Hingoli do hereby
state of solemn affirmation that, the contents of this Writ
Petition from paragraph No.1 to 16 are true and correct to
the best of my knowledge.
Hence, verified on this 16th day of June 2008 at
Aurangabad.

Identified Deponent
and Explained by me
Jeevan s/o Murlidharrao Andhare
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. / 2008

DISTRICT: HINGOLI
Jeevan s/o Murlidharrao Andhare
PETITIONER
VERSUS

State of Maharashtra & Others …… RESPONDENTS

INDEX

Sr. Particulars of the Documents Exhibit Page.

1 Copy of petition Memo 1- 11
2 List of Documents 12-12
3 The copies of Representations dated
2-5-2008 and 17-4-2008 made by
Smt. Rajabai Jadhav, Member of Panchayt
Sasmiti Vasmat.
4 The copies of representations Dt. & 30-5-08
petitioner and the copy of communication
Dt. 3-6-08 made by District Collector Hingoli
to the Respondent No. 2
5 The copy of news published in the news paper
with photograph of resp. No. 3 & copy of
separate affidavit of petitioner.
6 copy of Government Resolution Dt 30-4-08.

Last Page.

PLACE: AURANGABAD
DATE: 16-6-2008 (SUNTOSH B PULKUNDWAR)
 Advocate for the Petitioner.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. / 2008

DISTRICT: HINGOLI
Jeevan s/o Murlidharrao Andhare
PETITIONER
VERSUS

State of Maharashtra & Others …… RESPONDENTS

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

Sr. Particulars of the Documents Exhibit Page.

1 The copies of Representations dated

2-5-2008 and 17-4-2008 made by
Smt. Rajabai Jadhav, Member of Panchayt
Sasmiti Vasmat.
2. The copies of representations Dt. & 30-5-08
petitioner and the copy of communication
Dt. 3-6-08 made by District Collector Hingoli
to the Respondent No. 2
3. The copy of news published in the news paper
with photograph of resp. No. 3 & copy of
separate affidavit of petitioner.
4. Copy of Government Resolution Dt 30-4-08.

Last Page.

PLACE: AURANGABAD
DATE: 16-6-2008 (SUNTOSH B PULKUNDWAR)
 Advocate for the Petitioner.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. / 2008

DISTRICT: HINGOLI

Jeevan s/o Murlidharrao Andhare

PETITIONER
VERSUS

State of Maharashtra & Others …… RESPONDENTS

SYNOPSIS:-

SrNo. Date PARTICULARS OF EVENTS Exhibit

By way of this Writ Petition he is making

grievance regarding posting of Resp. No. 3
on the post of Education Extension Officer
with Panchayat Samiti Vasmat since last
Nine years. The present petition is being filed
in the interest of public, as the Resp. No. 3 is
not working on the above post properly and
though he was transferred from the said post
on earlier three occasions. He managed to
get cancelled the said transfer order by using
his political influence.
 1. The petitioner is a social worker and working
as a representative of various social workers
or organizations functioning in Hingoli District.
The Resp. No. 3 is working as an Education
Extension Officer with the Vasmat Panchayat
Samiti since the year 1997-98. As such, while
working on the said post, various complaints
were made against him concerning political
activities. On the basis of said complaint,
penalty of stopping his one increment was
imposed.

2. Considering the complaints made against

the Resp. No.3, regarding his conduct and
functioning, he was transferred in the year
2006, 2007 and recently in the year 2008.
However surprisingly on aforesaid three
occasions the Respondent No. 3 by using his
political influence, managed to cancel his
transfer order

3. 2-5-08 Smt. Rajabai Jadhav, member of Panchayat

Samiti Vasmat had made various
representations to Respondent No. 2 Chief
Executive Officer Hingoli, Honourable
Education Minister, Maharashtra State,
Honourable Lokayukta, Maharashtra State
and the Education Secretary, Maharashtra
State, stating in detail the complaint of Resp.
No.3 with the request that, the Respondent
 No. 3 be transferred from the post of
Education Extension Officer Vasmat to some
other place, since the Respondent No. 3 was
due for transfer and is not discharging his
duties properly

4. 30-5-08 The petitioner and some other persons had

made representations to Resp. No. 2 Chief
Executive Officer, Collector Hingoli, Hon’ble
Education Minister, Hon’ble Rural
Development Minister, The Education
Secretary, Maharashtra State and also to the
Divisional Commissioner at Aurangabad.
Pursuant to various representations made by
petitioner and Rajabai Jadhav Member of
Panchayat Samiti Vasmat, the Collector
Hingoli had asked the Respondent No. 2 to
take proper action.

5 The news papers have also taken view of this

and published the news with photograph of
Resp. No. 3 by writing the name of Resp. No.
3 that, he was present and took part in local
programme of Sambhaji Brigade.

6. 30.4.08 In the Govt. Resolution dated 30-4-2008 the

guidelines for transfer of class-3, class4
employees are given in the First Annexure.
Guidelines No. 15 specifically states about
transfer of Education Extension Officer/Circle
Head and Headmasters in the Panchayat
 Samiti, thereby it is specifically stated that,
after completion of five years service of
above employees the permission should be
given on the administrative ground to transfer
such employees in another Panchayat
Samiti.

7 The Respondent authorities and the higher

authorities are not taking any action
regarding transfer of Resp. No. 3 despite the
fact that, he is fully involved in the local
politics. Hence, interference from this High
Court in exercise of its extra ordinary
jurisdiction is called for in the interest of
justice
Hence this petition.

POINTS TO BE ARGUED:
1. Whether the respondent No. 3 should be
allowed to remain at one place for more than five
years in the circumstances when there are various
complaints against him and he is holding social
programs and taking active participation in local
politics?

2. Whether the non action/inaction on the part of

Resp. No.2 for the transfer of Resp. No. 3 in a
particular case, when continuously last three years
his name was included in the transfer list but still
he is not transferred?
ACTS & RULES TO BE REFERRED:
1. The Constitution of India.
CITATIONS:
Case law will be cited at the time of hearing.

Date: 16- 6 -2008 SUNTOSH B PULKUNDWAR

Place: Aurangabad Advocate for Petitioner