DHANANJAY BHAGWANDAS DEVI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Since similar issues arising in these Writ Petitions, they are being decided together by this common judgment. Both the petitioners came to be appointed as Associate Professors at the College of Engineering and Polytechnic that is being conducted by the 4th respondent - Society. By an order dtd. 20/2/2023, both the petitioners were transferred from Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil College of Engineering, Satara to Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Polytechnic, Varye, Panmalewadi, Satara on administrative grounds. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said order of transfer principally on the ground that the College of Engineering, where they were serving as Associate Professors, is affiliated to the 8th respondent - All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE), while the college where they have been so transferred is a Polytechnic College, that falls within the purview of the 2nd respondent - Director of Technical Education and is recognized as a "School" under Sec. 2(24) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The transfer is thus not on an equivalent post. During pendency of the Writ Petitions, the services of both the petitioners came to be placed under suspension pending enquiry by the orders dtd. 2/5/2023. By amending the Writ Petitions, the petitioners seek to raise a challenge to the orders of suspension.

(3.) Mr. C.G. Gavnekar, learned counsel for the petitioners raised two fold contentions. Insofar as the orders of transfer are concerned, it was submitted that as the petitioners were serving on the post of Associate Professor at the College of Engineering and Polytechnic, Satara, their services were liable to be transferred at any of the Sanstha's colleges. This would mean that the petitioners' transfer could be effected on an equivalent post in any college where such posts of Associate Professor were available. Since the impugned orders of transfer require the petitioners to discharge duties at the Polytechnic College, which is a "school", under Sec. 2(24) of the Act of 1977, on a post that was not equivalent, the orders of transfer are liable to be set aside. The justification sought to be given by the Management that the orders of transfer were effected in accordance with the terms of appointment of the petitioners, cannot be accepted. Referring to paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Society, it was pointed out that the petitioners ' transfers were permissible at any of the colleges run by the Society and not at any school run by it. On this count, it was submitted that the orders of transfer were liable to be set aside.