1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2314 /2011 (Shri Deorao N Gajbhiye vs. The Education Officer (Sec) Z.P.Gadchiroli and another ) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : 4 th August, 2011 . Heard finally. Advocate P N Shende contents that petitioner has been transferred in blatant violation of Rule 41 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981, that too to an unaided establishment and, therefore, his service conditions, like pension and salary are adversely affected. In the alternative and without prejudice, it is contended that the order does not mention that it is on administrative exigency and hence it does not meet the requirement of Rule 41 of the Rules of 1981. He states that wife of the petitioner is also working in a very same College at Korchi and as per settled policy in this respect, the petitioner cannot be sent to a place which is more than 30 k.m. away from Korchi. Attention is invited to Resolution 2 filed along with reply by respondent no.2 to urge that transfer is penal/punitive as it is on complaints or for alleged misconduct. It is contended that respondent no.2-employer ought to have conducted an enquiry in the matter in accordance with law. Mrs.Raskar, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 is supporting the order. Attention is invited to reply-affidavit to show that neither salary nor any service conditions of the petitioner is adversely affected. It is further contended that as per the policy of management, Head of the school is changed after every five years and accordingly five years back the petitioner was brought from Kurkheda to Korchi school and after completion of that period, he is now being sent back. It is further urged that unsatisfactory performance as noticed in the resolution is also one of the reasons for such a transfer. Reliance is being placed upon the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court reported at 2006 Vol.5 Mh.L.J. Page 431 in the matter of President, Shri Saraswati Education Society and another vs. Vinayak Bhagwan Karodade and others, to urge that as appropriate precautionary measures have been 3 taken in the present matter, the transfer is not prohibited. After hearing respective counsel, we find that Rule 41 of the Rules of 1981 permits the respondent no. 2 to effect transfer on administrative grounds. The respondent no.2 has pointed out its policy and also non-satisfactory performance of petitioner. Whether to conduct an enquiry for such an unsatisfactory performance is altogether a different thing, but then the decision to transfer the respondent no.2, in this backdrop, cannot be said to be one not based upon administrative grounds. The affidavit of respondent no.2 that the pay-scale /salary and other service conditions of petitioner are not adversely affected, needs to be accepted. It is to be noted that the petitioner has not demonstrated any mala fides in the matter. In this situation, we are not inclined to interfere. The petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE sahare