1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 5458/2010. Sau. Pratibha Pradip Ahire -VERSUS- Mahesh Vidya Prasarak shikshan Sanstha and others. with WRIT PETITION No. 5459/2010. Ku. Meena Liladhar Nagarkar -VERSUS- Mahesh Vidya Prasarak shikshan Sanstha and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JULY 07, 2011. Heard Shri P.D. Meghe, learned Counsel for petitioners, Shri B.G. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mrs. Joshi, learned A.G.P. for respondents no.3 and 4. We find that the challenge to impugned transfer order is already concluded by judgment dated 05.07.2010 delivered in Writ Petition Nos. 2465 and 2467 of 2010. 2 This Court after concluding that challenge and refusing to interfere in the matter, accepted the submission of respective petitioners and permitted them to make representation to the Management for their retention at the original place. That representation has been looked into and rejected by the management on 03.08.2010. The reason for refusal to retain petitioners at their existing School is, non-cooperation, negligence, non performing the duties, which resulted in less admissions and therefore, the reduction in number of sections, frivolous complaints [as alleged] made by the petitioners for 5 years to Government, and therefore, impression of management that petitioners would not change their attitude. Capitalizing on this rejection and reasons contained therein, learned Counsel for petitioners contended that the School at Palandur, District Gondia at a distance of about 200 kms. from the existing school has been acquired long after the petitioners joined services, and hence they cannot be transferred to such new establishment. He is relying 3 upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 1960 SC 650 (M/s. Kundan Sugar Mills .vrs. Ziyauddin and others). He has also cited subsequent judgments taking similar view. According to him Rule 41 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 permits transfer only on administrative grounds and reasons assigned in the order dated 03.08.2010 cannot be viewed as such administrative ground. Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 is supporting the orders. According to him, the impugned order dated 03.08.2010 are not the transfer orders. He further contends that the reasons assigned therein are not the reasons for transfer. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s . Kundan Sugar Mills .vrs. Ziyauddin and others (supra), considers the right of employer to transfer vis-a-vis the provisions of the Industrial Legislation. It is not in dispute that the subsequent judgments on which the petitioners are placing reliance also consider the same right. Here provisions 4 of Rules 41 of the MEPS Rules, 1981 expressly permits the management to transfer an employee and accordingly the transfer has been ordered. The said judgment therefore, has no application. The challenge to transfer order as such was negatived by this Court when it decided Writ Petition Nos. 2465 and 2467 of 2010. After that rejection the request made by the petitioners to move management for their retention at existing place was allowed, and petitioners were accordingly directed to make that representation. Those representations have been rejected on 03.08.2010. Reasons contained in rejection letters are therefore not the reasons for transfer. Those are the reasons which prompted management to reject the representation for retention at Nagpur. Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel has urged that the material on the basis of which representation has been rejected on 03.08.2010 was pointed out to this Court in Writ Petition Nos.2465 and 2467 of 2010. We do not find it necessary to go into that controversy. 5 It is apparent that the reasons given by the management for rejection of the representation cannot confer upon petitioners a fresh cause of action to challenge the original transfer order. We, therefore, find the petitions misconceived. Shri Meghe, learned Counsel for petitioners states that petitioners should be permitted to report for duties in two weeks. Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondents states that subject to the rights of management in the matter, the management will permit the petitioners to report within said period of two weeks. Accordingly petitioners are permitted to report for duty within a period of two weeks and management is also similarly directed to accept their joining without prejudice to their rights in the matter. In view of above, Writ Petitions are disposed of, with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd