1wp-10310-09 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10310 OF 2009 Professor D.S.Pawar ...Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents. Mr Uday P. Warunjikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr S. N. Patil, A.G.P., for Respondent No.1. Mr G.S.Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED: 8TH MARCH,2010 P.C.: 1. The petitioner by this petition challenges the order dated 29.11.2008 transferring the petitioner from the post of Lecturer in Zoology at Fergusson College,Pune to a College of the same Institute at Sangli. The petitioner has not yet joined the post where he has been 2wp-10310-09 transferred. The petitioner challenges the transfer order on the ground that he has made complaints against the working of the Institute, where he is working, to the University and on the basis of those complaints the University has appointed fact finding committee. He further submits that he has made complaints against the appointment of one teacher against the vacancy reserved for backward candidates. Pursuant to that complaint inquiry was made and it was found that the teacher is not a backward class candidate. The petitioner submits that because of those complaints the Management is against him. He also submits that he was entitled to be promoted to the post of Head of the Department at Pune but he was transferred and some other Lecturer, Junior to him, has been promoted to the post of Head of the Department. The learned counsel further submits that there is no provision in the bye-laws of the Institute or in the Statutes of the Pune University permitting transfer of a teacher from the jurisdiction of one University to the other university. The learned counsel submits that transfer of the petitioner to a place outside the jurisdiction of Pune University is not valid. 3wp-10310-09 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Institute has pointed out that the petitioner has been transferred pursuant to a clause in his appointment order. In relation to that the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out to us advertisement issued in the year 1999 pursuant to which the petitioner was appointed to show that there was no such condition contained in the advertisement. He also pointed out that in the initial order of appointment condition of transfer was not included. That condition was included only in the appointment order of the year 1999. The learned counsel submits that the reason given in the transfer order that he is being transferred on administrative grounds is thus not correct. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents who pointed out that there are ten posts of Lecturers in Zoology in Pune College out of which two are vacant. So far as Sangli college is concerned there are four posts of Lecturers out of which three are vacant and, therefore, the petitioner is being transferred to 4wp-10310-09 Sangli. 4. From the record we find that there is no law pointed out to us which is contravened by the transfer order. Infact, we find that the appointment order dated 29.11.2008 specifically permits the Management to effect transfer of an employee from one Institute, run by the management, to the other Institute. In our opinion, it will not make any difference if that Institute is within the jurisdiction of another University. All the Universities in the State of Maharashtra are constituted under the same Act and all of them are controlled by the Government of Maharashtra. In our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is being transferred out of malice because of the complaints made by him also cannot be accepted. Because whatever complaints the petitioner has made are being enquired into. Looking to the nature of the complaints made by the petitioner shows because of the transfer of the peitioner the enquiry is not likely to be adversely affected. 5. Taking over all view of the matter, in our opinion as transfer has been ordered pursuant to a clause 5wp-10310-09 in the appointment order, no exception can be taken. Petition is, therefore, rejected. However, if as per the statement petitioner joins his place of transfer then the Management has stated before us that the petitioner would be permitted to join if he does so within two weeks from today. Petition is disposed of. (JUSTICE D.K.DESHMUKH) (JUSTICE A.R.JOSHI)