1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2186 of 2007 (Sau. Pratibha Suryakant Kale .vs. State & Ors.) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : D.D.Sinha and Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, JJ. DATE : January 07, 2008. Heard Mrs. U.A.Patil, Adv. for the Petitioner, Mr.N.W.Sambre, Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mrs.Jawalkar, Adv. for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr.Mohgaonkar, Adv. for the Respondent No.5. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is working as a part-time lecturer in D.Ed. college since 1997. It is contended that, in the year 2006, full-time vacancy in the post of lecturer in the D.Ed. college was created and therefore, in view of the Government Circular dt. 31.1.2001, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of full- time lecturer since the petitioner was working in the said institution as a part-time lecturer. However, the Management transferred the respondent no.5 on the said post from Higher Secondary School. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that the action of the respondent-Management is bad in law as well as inconsistent with the above referred Government Circular. 2 Mr.Sambre, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-Education Department has submitted that there was no full-time post created in the year 2006; the full-time employee who was working in the D.Ed. college came to be retired and therefore, in her place, the respondent no.5 was brought by issuing order of transfer and therefore, it is prayed that the contentions canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable in law. After considering the rival contentions and in view of the positive statement made by the learned Government Pleader that there was no full-time post created in the institution in the year 2006, the question of extending benefit of the Government Circular dt. 31.1.2001 to the petitioner at this stage does not arise. It is also evident that since the permanent employee was retired, the Management transferred the respondent no.3 on the said post. There is no challenge in the petition in respect of power of the Management to transfer the respondent no.5 from Higher Secondary School to the D.Ed. college and in absence thereof as well as for the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition suffers from lack of merits. Hence, the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE ssj