Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SONALI MADHUKAR DHUTUREversusTHE STATE MAHRASHTRA THR. SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad must decide the petitioners' pending representations within a reasonable time and that no adverse transfer order may be issued against them until such a decision is made.

Summary

The petitioners, teachers, filed writ petitions seeking direction to the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of their respective Zilla Parishads to decide pending representations concerning a government scheme that allows husband and wife teachers to be posted at the same station or within 30 km. They relied on a Government Resolution dated 18 June 2024 and argued that timely decisions were necessary for the upcoming annual transfer process. The Court found that the CEOs have a statutory duty to decide such representations within a reasonable period and noted that the decisions had not been made. Accordingly, the Court directed the CEOs to decide the pending representations within 15 days of the order and prohibited any adverse transfer orders against the petitioners until a decision is rendered. The writ petitions were allowed and the matters were disposed of without costs.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Chief Executive Officer of a Zilla Parishad is obligated to decide pending representations of teachers within a stipulated time under the Government Resolution.
  • Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection from adverse transfer orders pending such a decision.

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • transfer of teachers
  • government resolution
  • Zilla Parishad
  • representation
  • administrative duty
  • unification scheme
  • adverse order
  • civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                                               906-11220-2025-CWP-C=.doc



                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            WRIT PETITION NO. 11220 OF 2025
          Digitally
          signed by    Dhiraj Jagu Humbe                                         … Petitioners
UDAY      UDAY
          SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI   JAGTAP
          Date:                         Versus
JAGTAP    2026.04.30
          18:44:24
          +0530
                       The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Rural Dev.       … Respondents
                       and Water Conservation Dept. and Ors.

                                                        WITH
                                            WRIT PETITION NO. 11295 OF 2025
                       Sushmma Rajaram Kothawale and Ors.                        … Petitioners
                                        Versus
                       The State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary and Ors.          … Respondents

                                                        WITH
                                            WRIT PETITION NO. 11297 OF 2025

                       Sonali Madhukar Dhuture                                   … Petitioners
                                        Versus
                       The State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary and Ors.          … Respondents

                                                       ………….
                       Mr. Abhay Jadhavar i/b Mr. Balaji Shinde for the Petitioners.
                       Mr. Ashok Misal for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
                       Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP 11220/2025
                       Ms. T.J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP 11295/2025
                       Mr. A.A. Naik, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP 11297/2025
                                                       ………….

                                                         CORAM :      MADHAV J. JAMDAR &
                                                                      PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.

                                                         DATE       : 28th APRIL, 2026.
                       P. C. :

                       1.        In all these petitions, the grievance raised by the Petitioners is


                       Uday S. Jagtap                      1 of 3
                                                        906-11220-2025-CWP-C=.doc



identical. The submission made by them restricted to the effect that, the

Chief Executive Officers of respective Zilla Parishad be directed to decide

their pending representations.



2.       After the perusal of representations, it is clear that Petitioners on

relying upon Government Resolution dated 18 th June 2024 claimed the

benefit of scheme of unification of Husband and Wife at one station or

within a radius of 30 km from each other. According to Petitioners their

representations are required to be decided in a stipulated time period so

that while implementing the Annual Transfer process of Teachers, their

claim will be considered in a particular category as prescribed in

Resolution.



3.       In view of this, we are satisfied that the duty is caste upon Chief

Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad to decide such representation within

time bound period, but same are not yet decided. Transfer process is

likely to be undertaken by each Zilla Parishad in the month of May-June

of this year.


4.       Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The respective Zilla

Parishad, Chief Executive Officer are hereby directed to decide the

pending representations of the Petitioners dated 25 th August 2025, 8th


Uday S. Jagtap                       2 of 3
                                                         906-11220-2025-CWP-C=.doc



September 2025 and 15th September 2025 within a period of 15 days

from the date of production of this order before the respective Chief

Executive Officers of Zilla Parishad.


5.       It is made clear that till the decision is taken by the Chief Executive

Officer, no adverse order of transfer to their services be passed against

the present Petitioners.


6.       Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to

costs.



[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. ]                             [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]




Uday S. Jagtap                       3 of 3


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.