1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.15 OF 2008 (Ku. Nanda d/o Madhukarrao Mandle vs. The Education Officer (Secondary) and others) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 12, 2008 Heard Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Khubalkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1, and Shri Sadar, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2. The petition is directed against the order of transfer dated 28.12.2007 whereby petitioner is transferred from Tembhurkheda to Veni Ganeshpur. Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that transfer of the petitioner is a mid term transfer and as per Rule 41(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, such 2 mid-term transfer is permitted only in an exceptional case and the Management has to record reasons for doing so. It is submitted that the impugned transfer order does not show any reasons for transferring the petitioner in the middle of the academic session. Shri Sadar, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 Management, has supported the impugned order of transfer and contended that same is issued on the administrative ground. It is submitted that resolution of the Management dated 6.1.2008 shows that continuation of the petitioner in School at Tembhurkheda was not congenial to the atmosphere in the School and, therefore, it was necessary for the Management to transfer her on the administrative ground. It is contended that though petitioner's transfer is a mid term transfer, there are reasons to do so. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the aforesaid Rule. The transfer of the petitioner undoubtedly is a mid term and order of transfer does not show any reason whatsoever for transferring the petitioner in the middle of the term. Rule 41(2) of the Rules of 1981 contemplates that such mid term transfer should be made in the exceptional cases and for 3 proper reasons to be recorded by the Management for effecting such mid term transfer. Since it is the requirement of the Rule, it is incumbent on the Management to record reasons, if any, while effecting mid term transfer. In the instant case, neither Management has passed any Resolution prior to passing the impugned order of transfer nor the impugned order itself discloses any reasons for effecting mid term transfer. The Resolution which is placed on record is dated 6.1.2008 and in our view, reasons mentioned therein are after-thought and cannot be considered to be the reasons for effecting the mid term transfer of the petitioner. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order of transfer is quashed and set aside. The petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE khj