Bombay High Court
IRESH GANGARAM CHAPPALWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND AORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed; the transfer order is valid and the petitioner is only entitled to be assigned a posting after completing his tenure.
Summary
The petitioner, a Tahsildar posted at Borivali, challenged a transfer order dated 24 March 2026 that moved him without assigning a new posting and before completing his three‑year normal tenure. He argued that the transfer was made to accommodate a private respondent and was not in the public interest, also contending that consent of the Election Commission of India (ECI) was required as he was serving in the Election Branch. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal suspended the transfer until the petitioner completed his tenure on 12 June 2026, effectively granting him relief. The petitioner then appealed to the High Court, seeking to set aside the interim order and arguing that the transfer remained invalid post‑tenure without ECI approval. The Court held that transfer orders are incidents of service and may be interfered with only on grounds of arbitrariness or mal‑afect, none of which were established, and noted that the Chief Electoral Officer had conveyed ECI consent. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the respondents to assign the petitioner a proper posting without further delay.
Issues considered
- Whether a transfer order issued before completion of the normal three‑year tenure of posting is violative of established service norms.
- Whether a transfer order that does not assign a specific place of posting is valid.
- Whether the consent of the Election Commission of India is required for the transfer of a Tahsildar serving in the Election Branch.
- Whether the interim order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal should have been set aside.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with a service transfer order absent arbitrariness or mal‑afect.
Subjects
- transfer of service
- normal tenure
- Tahsildar
- Election Commission of India
- administrative law
- judicial review
- service law
Judgment
38 WP 7888-26-C.DOC
Priya Soparkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7888 OF 2026
Mr. Iresh Gangaram Chappalwar …Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and ors. …Respondents
Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Rohan Mirpury, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. A. R. Deolekar, AGP with Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for the State.
Mr. Ashutosh Rathod with Mr. Gaurav Bandiwadekar, Mr. Bhushan
Bandiwadekar and Ms. Gayatri Bandiwadekar, for the
Respondent No.4.
CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATED: 19th AUGUST 2026.
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Anil Sakhare, learned senior counsel appearing
for the Writ Petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. R. Deolekar, learned AGP
appearing for the State and Mr. Ashutosh Rathod, learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent No.4.
2. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. The Writ
PRIYA
RAJESH
SOPARKAR
Digitally signed by
Petitioner herein, was posted as Tahasildar, Borivali, Mumbai
PRIYA RAJESH
SOPARKAR
Date: 2026.08.25
19:32:05 +0530
Suburban District vide order dated 12th June, 2023. Pursuant to
the order dated 14th November, 2025, the Respondent No.4 was
granted promotion and posted as Tahsildar (Election), in the office
of District Collector, Mumbai Suburban District. Thereafter, by
Page 1 of 8
38 WP 7888-26-C.DOC
issuing the impugned transfer order dated 24 th March, 2026, the
Writ Petitioner was transferred from the post of Tahsildar, Borivali,
Mumbai Suburban District without, however, assigning any place
of posting to him. On the same day, i.e. 24 th March, 2026, the
Respondent No.4 was transferred and posted as Tahsildar, Borivali,
Mumbai Suburban District i.e. in place of the Petitioner, though the
said post was shown as vacant. Aggrieved by the orders dated 24th
March, 2026, the Writ Petitioner, as Original Applicant, had
approached the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
(MAT), Mumbai by filing Original Application (OA) No.275 of
2026. The primary contention of the Original Applicant/Writ
Petitioner was to the effect that the impugned order dated 24 th
March, 2026 transferring the Writ Petitioner, was issued before
completion of his normal tenure of 3 years at one place of posting.
Therefore, the impugned order has been issued in violation of the
established norms ordinarily adhered to by the authorities in
transfer matters.
3. According to the Original Applicant/Writ Petitioner, the
order dated 24th March, 2026 was issued only to accommodate the
Page 2 of 8
38 WP 7888-26-C.DOC
private Respondent and therefore, the same was not a transfer
order issued in the interest of exigencies of public service.
4. After taking note of the grievance of the Original
Applicant/Writ Petitioner, the learned Tribunal had passed order
dated 25th March, 2026, suspending the operation of the impugned
order for a period of three months i.e. until 12 th June, 2026,
presumeably on account of the fact that the Original
Applicant/Writ Petitioner would complete the full tenure of 3 years
as Tahsildar, Borivali, Mumbai on that date. The relevant
observations made by the learned Tribunal in paragraphs No.9 and
10 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
“9. The above mentioned facts &
circumstances must therefore result in
observing that 'Balance of Convenance' at this
stage lies in favour of Applicant and
consequently it is directed that the Applicant
should continued on post of Tahsildar, Borivali
Mumbai Suburban District' and Respondent
No.4 on the post of ‘Tahsildar (Election)' in
Office of 'District Collector, Mumbai Suburban
District' till completion of Normal Tenure of '3
Years' of Applicant on 12.06.2026. In the
meanwhile; the 'Revenue And Forest
Department' as ‘Cadre Controlling Authority' of
‘Tahsildar' would be at liberty to decide
assignment of suitable post to Applicant from
12.06.2026.
Page 3 of 8
38 WP 7888-26-C.DOC
10. The implementation of 'Government
Order' dated 24.03.2026 of Respondent No.4
to post of Tahsildar, Borivali Mumbai
Suburban District' will thus stand deferred but
shall invariably be brought effect on
12.06.2025 when Respondent No.4 shall be
relieved from post of ‘Tahsildar (Election)' in
Office of ‘District Collector, Mumbai Suburban
District' to join on post of Tahsildar, Borivali
Mumbai Suburban District'.”
5. The order dated 25th March, 2026 is an interim order and
the Original Application is still pending disposal before the learned
Administrative Tribunal. The Original Applicant/Writ Petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition assailing
the interim order dated 25th March, 2026 by contending that
instead of suspending the operation of the impugned order dated
24th March, 2026, the learned Tribunal ought to have set aside the
same. The said arguments is also premised on the ground that
since the Petitioner was serving in the Election Branch, hence, in
view of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls
currently under progress, the Petitioner could not have been
transferred without the permission of the Election Commission of
India (ECI). On such count as well, the Petitioner claims to be
entitled to continue in his present place of posting at Borivali.
Page 4 of 8
38 WP 7888-26-C.DOC
6. In support of the above contention, Mr. Anil Sakhare,
learned senior counsel has argued that the issues involved in this
Writ Petition are not confined only to the normal tenure of posting
in one place, but the same also pertain to the procedure adopted
by the authorities to transfer the Petitioner without assigning any
place of posting and also without obtaining the approval of the
Election Commission of India. As such, the impugned order dated
25th March, 2026 as well as the transfer order dated 24th March,
2026, deserve to be set-aside by this Court.
7. Mr. Ashutosh Rathod, learned counsel for Respondent No.4,
on the other hand, has invited our attention to the consent of the
Election Commission of India to the proposal of transfer of the
Petitioner and submits that the Writ Petitioner has suppressed
material facts and approached this Court with unclean hands.
Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on such count
alone. Similar arguments have been advanced by the learned AGP.
8. After going through the material on record, we find that the
grievance of the Petitioner was originally on account of the fact
that his transfer was being effected before completion of the
normal tenure of 3 years. Taking note of such grievance of the
Page 5 of 8
38 WP 7888-26-C.DOC
Original Applicant/Writ Petitioner, by the impugned order dated
25th March, 2026, the learned Tribunal has permitted the Petitioner
to continue in his present place of posting till 12 th June, 2026, i.e.
the date on which he completes the normal tenure of 3 years. It is
therefore, evident that by the interim order dated 25th March,
2026, the learned Tribunal had virtually granted the final relief to
the Original Applicant/Writ Petitioner. Notwithstanding the same,
after enjoying the fruits of the order dated 25 th March, 2026, the
Writ Petitioner has approached this Court assailing the very same
order, which has granted him the relief, this time by contending
that he cannot be transferred even after completion of 3 years
without the consent of the ECI.
9. It must be born in mind that law regarding jurisdiction of the
Courts and Tribunal to interfere with transfer order is extremely
limited. Transfer, being an incident of service, any order of transfer
would not ordinarily be interfered with by the Court in exercise of
power of judicial review unless it is found that the same has been
issued arbitrarily and in malafide exercise of powers or in violation
of statutory norms, causing serious prejudice to the interest of the
Page 6 of 8
38 WP 7888-26-C.DOC
employee. However, no such case has been made out by the Writ
Petitioner.
10. From a careful analysis of the facts of the case, as noted
above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the
order(s) impugned in Writ Petition. On the contrary, we find that
after the interim order dated 25th March, 2026 and upon
completion of 3 years in the same place of posting, the Original
Applicant/Writ Petitioner does not have any right to seek
continuation of his posting as Tahsildar, Borivali, Mumbai beyond
12th June, 2026 and therefore, save and except asking for an order
of posting, he would not be entitled to any further order.
Therefore, we hold that the Respondents are duty bound to assign
him a proper place of posting without any further delay.
11. Coming to question of want of consent by the Election
Commission of India, we have perused the documents on record,
more particularly, the communication dated 11 th June, 2026 issued
by the Chief Electoral Officer, Maharashtra State, whereby, he has
conveyed the consent of the Election Commission of India for
transfer of the Petitioner. Therefore, it is factually not correct that
Page 7 of 8
38 WP 7888-26-C.DOC
the Petitioner has been transferred without the approval of the
Election Commission of India.
12. From examination of the overall facts and circumstances of
the case, we find that notwithstanding a favourable interim order
from the learned Tribunal, the Petitioner, instead of complying with
the order dated 25th March, 2026, has made an attempt to cling on
to a particular post in a manner which is not befitting the conduct
of a responsible Government servant. Therefore, by deprecating
such conduct of the Petitioner, we hold that there is no merit in the
Writ Petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
{
Page 8 of 8
Checking your session…