WPs 7230/11, 7270/11 & 7272/11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7230/2011 Chandrakali Pandurang Dhongde V/s The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai & others. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7270/2011 Ramesh Ramrao Shinde V/s The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai & others. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7272/2011 Shaikh Dastagir Haju V/s The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai & others. _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri S.R. Choukidar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.N. Kendre, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri I.D. Maniyar, Advocate h/f Shri V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for respondent no.2. Shri R.R. Bangar, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date: 30.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. By way of present petitions, the petitioners are challenging the refusal on the WPs 7230/11, 7270/11 & 7272/11 2 part of the respondent no.2 in giving approval to the transfer orders of the petitioners effected by the respondent no.3. The only reason given in the affidavit in reply on behalf of the respondent no.2 is that since there are surplus teachers, the approval cannot be granted. One of the other reasons given is that in one case, the proposal is sent eight days prior to the vacancy arising, inasmuch as the person against whom one of the petitioners, was to be posted, was to retire eight days subsequently. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, we find the same to be totally untenable. It is not the case that petitioners are being appointed against the vacant posts. The petitioners are only transferred from one school to another run by the same management - respondent no.3 and that too also on the posts, which are receiving grant in aid. Insofar as sending the proposal eight days in advance, we do not find anything wrong in it. In the event, the respondent no.2 WPs 7230/11, 7270/11 & 7272/11 3 desires to absorb any surplus teachers, the same can still be done inasmuch as the posts from where the petitioners would be transferred would be vacant for absorbing the surplus teachers. In that view of the matter, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). (M.T. Joshi, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 30.11.2011 ndk/c3011119