1 OSWP-1506-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1506 OF 2011 Dr.Bhimrao Somaji Gaikwad and anr. ...Petitioners Versus Shri K.H. Ranganath and ors. ...Respondents Mr.Mihir Desai for petitioners. Mr.Sarida K. Unny with Mr.Gaurav Gadodia for resp.nos.2 and 3. Ms.Anjali Helekar, AGP for resp.no.4. Mr.Prosper D’Souza for resp.no.6. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. December 5, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard. Both the petitioners are aggrieved by separate transfer orders issued on 10/6/2011. The first petitioner has been transferred as an Associate Professor at Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Mahad (Raigad) and he has been subsequently suspended by the order dated 27/7/2011. The said order of suspension is a subject 2 OSWP-1506-2011 matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.1962 of 2011 which we have admitted today. The second petitioner holds the post of Librarian and he has been transferred from Dr.Ambedkar College of Commerce and Economics, Wadala to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Mahad (Raigad). In his place Shri S.S.Athawale, Librarian was directed to report to the Principal of Dr.Ambedkar College of Commerce and Economics at Wadala. 2. AS noted earlier both the petitioners could have separately challenged their respective transfer orders. The main issue to challenge these orders is whether they have been signed by Shri K.H.Rangnath, Chairman of the People’s Education Society and secondly his competence to sign the said orders on the alleged ground that he was removed from the post of Chairman. 3. We have perused the Bye-laws of the People’s Education Society and prima facie we do not find the provision where the Chairman could be removed whereas the affidavit in reply filed by Mr.Rangnath states that he has signed the transfer orders. Mr.Desai has also invited our attention to the letter dated 16/5/2011 which states that Mr.Rangnath nominated 3 OSWP-1506-2011 Mr.M.S.Moray as his successor. It is also the contention of respondent nos.1 and 6 that the said letter dated 16/5/2011 is also forged. Thus there are disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into in a writ petition while challenging the authority to issue the transfer orders. 4. There is no dispute that the petitioners’ service conditions provide for transfer of service from one college to another and located in different cities in the State of Maharashtra and at the institutions run by the People’s Education Society. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the transfer orders on the face of the grounds for challenge against the said orders. Mr.Desai also submitted that petitioner no.2 should be given some more time to report at the transferred place. We hope that he reports as per the impugned transfer order at the new college within four weeks from today but it should not be treated that we have exonerated his absence till now and this order should not be treated to regularise his attendance which is subject to the Service Rules. 5. Hence, the petition is rejected. 6. Before we part with this petition, it has been brought to our notice 4 OSWP-1506-2011 that the Government of Maharashtra has intervened and more so because of the factional disputes in the Governing Council. The documents placed before us by both the parties and making claims and counter claims, allegations and counter allegations do suggest that the intervention of the Government of Maharashtra to ensure that the Governing Council of the People’s Education Society functions in the manner expected under the Bye-laws of the said Society, is warranted. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)