1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (W) NO.1849 OF 2011. IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2508 OF 2011. Ku. Sushma D/o Baliram Tirpude. .Vrs. Maharashtra Regional Board of Education of the Church of North India, thr. its Secretary, Mrs. Priya Chauhan and another. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. (Shri A. Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for petitioner.) Shri S. M. Ukey, Advocate for respondent No.1. Smt. M. Munshi, Advocate for respondent No.2.) CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D.KODE, J J. DATED : 25th July, 2011. Heard, Shri Jibhkate, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri Ukey, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Munshi, learned Counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner who was rendered surplus at Bhandara School was directed to be accommodated in very same school by Education Officer. Another teacher retired on superannuation on 22.02.2011 and Education Officer directed that against that vacancy 2 from 01st April, 2011 petitioner should be continued in Bhandara School. The Management thereafter has, on 09.05.2011 transferred the petitioner to another School at Chandrapur. Keeping reliance on the reply filed, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that, no reason for sending the petitioner out of Bhandara has been disclosed in that reply as also in the transfer order. It is urged that, this transfer is only with a view to accommodate another lady teacher in place of the petitioner. Attention is also invited to the application for amendment and grounds raised therein to point out the family background showing inconvenience caused to the petitioner. Shri Ukey as also Shri Munshi, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively, are supporting the transfer order. Petitioner has placed reliance on the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2011 (1) Mh.L.J., 307, (Pawar Bhagwantrao Bhivrao .Vrs. Shri Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur and others). There after 3 considering Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 41 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the MEPS Act”), the Division Bench has found that transfer was not necessitated on any of the exceptions envisaged in it. Hence it was held that, transfer is not on account of any administrative ground. We have repeatedly asked the petitioner to point out malafide which prompted Management, to send her out of Bhandara. There are no such pleadings and even in amendment application no such pleadings of malafides are levelled. Efforts are made to contend that Management wanted to accommodate another lady teacher in place of petitioner. However, that lady teacher is not party respondent before this Court. In this situation, we do not see any malafide. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, considering the family background pointed out by the petitioner, we permit petitioner to move representation to her employer in the matter. If 4 such representation is received from petitioner by her employer within a period of 4 weeks from today, the employer may consider the same within further period of 6 weeks. With these directions, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Deshmukh.