1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2243 OF 2011 (Uttam V. Kosamkar vs. Gramoddar Shikshan Sanstha and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri A. Sambre, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. --------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JULY 1, 2011 The above petition takes exception to the order dated 20/4/2011 passed by the District Judge-1, Achalpur whereby the appeal filed by the respondents herein came to be allowed and the injunction granted by the trial Court, i.e. 2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division staying the transfer of the petitioner herein came to be set aside. The petitioner herein is a full time Teacher working in a School run by the respondent no.1 Management at Amravati. The petitioner was 2 transferred by order dated 30/6/2009 from Amravati to a School in Daryapur Taluka. The petitioner took exception to the said order inter alia on the ground that since there was dispute in the Management, he could not be transferred as also on the ground that the said transfer was a mid-term transfer. The trial Court on the basis that there was a dispute in the Management as two groups were claiming to be in Management and, therefore, the transfer order issued by the present respondent no.3 was without authority, granted temporary injunction to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said grant of temporary injunction by the trial Court by its order dated 10/1/2011, the respondents herein filed an appeal in the District Court which was registered as Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.8/2011. The appellate Court set aside the temporary injunction granted in favour of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that admittedly the petitioner was holding a transferable job and that the fact that the change reports were pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner in respect of the 3 respondent no.3 was not a ground to question the authority of the respondent, who had issued the transfer order. In my view, the reasons given by the first Appellate Court cannot be found fault with. Moreover, in the light of the fact that the first appellate Court found that the transfer was not a mid-term transfer, as also the petitioner was holding a transferable job, in my view, no interference is called for with the impugned order in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE khj