CHANDRASHEKHAR BABASAHEB SANAP Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and respondent no2 are working on the post of "Tehsildar" in the services of Respondent No.1-State. A transfer order dated 1 October 2020 issued by the State, transferring the petitioner from Sangli to Man-Satara and consequently a purported transfer of respondent no-2, lead to an Original Application being filed by respondent no. 2, before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (for short, "Tribunal"). By the impugned order dated 29 October 2020 passed by the Chairperson of the tribunal the transfer order dated 1 October 2020 stands quashed and set aside.

(2.) The facts reveal that the petitioner who was posted as Tahsildar- Sangli, made a request to the State Government to transfer him. He came to be transferred as Tahsildar - Man, Satara where respondent No.2 was posted. By this transfer order respondent No.2 was sought to be relieved so as to accommodate the petitioner on his transfer from Sangli.

(3.) We cannot resist noting something peculiar in the said transfer order, namely that although the petitioner was transferred from Sangli to Man- Satara, however respondent no 2 was sought to be simplicitor relieved and was not issued any transfer order and /or was not given any posting on transfer. This although a condition was set out in column 17 of the transfer order that it would be subject to a transfer order, to be issued to respondent No.2. Further in paragraph 2 of the transfer order it was recorded that the transfer order would come into effect immediately and the transferred officer (petitioner) should also take charge immediately. Paragraph 3 of the transfer order infact recorded that the respondent No.2 would be issued a separate transfer order, which was not issued nay never issued. Thus, paragraph 2 of the transfer order on the face of it was contrary to column No.17 and paragraph 3 of the transfer order. On a plain look at the transfer order, it is clear as to how the post is made to fall vacant when the respondent No.2 herself was not transferred as set out in column No.17 of the transfer order.