SHANKARRAO NARAYANRAO JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Respondents waive service. Petition is heard finally.

(2.) This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution arises from the order dated 30th April, 2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 214 of 2009. The petitioner was posted as Sub Divisional Officer, Haveli, Pune and on completion of his tenure of more than 3 years was due for transfer. As per the instructions in letter dated 14th November, 2008 from the Chief Electoral Officer proposals were invited from the Divisional Commissioners for transfer of officers who were required to be transferred at the behest of the Commission. On 31st December, 2008 the Divisional Commissioner. Pune, had submitted his list to the State Government of all such officers. The name of the petitioner was included in the said list. The proposal was processed and submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer for his concurrence and such a concurrence was given on 18th February, 2009. The proposal was then placed before the Chief Minister through the Revenue Minister and with some modifications it was approved. Consequently on 2nd March, 2009 by a common order addressed to the Divisional Commissioner, Pune 28 officers under him were sought to be transferred from one station to another and on account of the instructions of the Election Commission of India. However, the authorities realised that the modifications made in the proposal by the Chief Minister were not placed before the Chief Electoral Officer and, therefore, on 3rd March, 2009 the order dated 2nd March, 2009 was stayed/kept in abeyance. On obtaining concurrence of the Chief Electoral Officer for the modification as well, the impugned order, in place of the order dated 2nd March, 2009 for transfers was issued. The petitioner who was sought to be transferred from Pune to Satara as Deputy Collector (Revenue) by the order dated 2nd March, 2009 retained his transfer to Satara even in the subsequent order dated 6th March, 2009. Being aggrieved by this order dated 6th March, 2009 the petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 214 of 2009. At the same time some other officers from the very same transfer order dated 6th March, 2009 and who were from the Pune Revenue Division had also approached the Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 202, 212, 213 and 517 of 2009.

(3.) In all these applications, the Tribunal had passed orders setting aside the transfers. Writ Petition No. 7141 of 2009 came to be filed before this Court by Smt. Nilima Dhaigude, who was respondent in O.A. No. 202 of 2009 challenging the judgment of the Tribunal rendered on 11th August, 2009. It was submitted by Smt. Nilima Dhaigude before this Court that the Tribunal had allowed the applications on a wrong admission that before issuing the order dated 6th March, 2009 approval of the Chief Minister was not obtained though it was essential and mandatory and she wanted to resile from the said concession. This Court did not consider such a request and left the petitioner therein to approach the Tribunal with a review application. The Review Application came to be dismissed and, therefore, Smt. Dhaigude approached this Court in the second round by filing Writ Petition No. 9665 of 2009. A Division Bench of this Court was pleased to dismiss the said petition as well on 23rd November, 2009. Thus the four other officers who were transferred by the impugned order dated 6th March, 2009 have succeeded before the Tribunal as well as before this Court in O.A. Nos. 202, 212, 213 and 517 of 2009 and on a common ground that before issuance of the transfer order dated 6th March, 2009 the approval of the Chief Minister was not obtained.