logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 BHC 2850 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
Case No : Writ Petition No. 8212 of 2021 & Civil Application No. 7855 of 2025 & Civil Application Nos. 2512 & 8979 of 2024
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE C. SANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA JAIN
Parties : Chetan & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mumbai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: R.I. Wakade, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.S. Patil, Addl.GP, R3, S.V. Dixit, R4, Nayana Patil, h/f. Surekha Mahajan, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 06-10-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 BHC-AUG 47160,
Judgment :-

Jitendra Jain, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Petition is heard finally.

2. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction against respondent no. 3 – Education Institute for implementing resolution dated 12.06.2021 by which the management decided to forward the proposal of the petitioner to the Education Officer for transfer from unaided division to aided division and further direction to the management to comply with the requisition sent by the Education Officer to the management in this regard vide communication dated 24.06.2021.

3. In sofar as the issue of seeking transfer as a right of an employee is concerned, this Court in Writ Petition No. 14956 of 2017 on 18.03.2024 in the case of Syeda Shahana Firdaus V. The State of Maharashtra and others has observed that such a right is not vested with the employee but it is the prerogative of the management. Therefore, such a writ cannot be issued by this Court against the management. However, that would not preclude the management to transfer the petitioner from unaided to aided division, if they so desire but certainly the petitioner as an employee, cannot as a matter of right, seek such a direction from the Court.

4. We have not been informed whether the petitioner’s name appears in TET scam. If his name appears, then the management will be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law based on the orders passed in relation to TET scam by the Maharashtra State Council of Examiantion.

5. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

6. Pending Civil Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of.

7. Rule stands discharged.
 
  CDJLawJournal