1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6866 OF 2007 Mrs. Farzana Begum Pathan, Age: 32 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Opp. Sami Bakery, Azam Colony, Roshan gate, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust, Through its President, Dr. Abdul Gaffar Quadri, Age: 50 years, Occ: President, R/o. c/o. Seema Nursing Home, Roshan Gate, Aurangabad and others. ...RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3090 OF 2008 ... Shri. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V.D.Gunale,Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Shri. V.B.Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.3 & 4. .... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 1ST JULY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 2. The petitioner challenges the transfer order passed on 19-11-2007 from Aurangabad to Paithan in a school run by the same Management Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust. The petitioner's husband, who was also working in the school, run by the same Management, was transferred by order on 10-07-2005 from Aurangabad to Khultabad. Under the transfer order of the petitioner, one Smt. Nusarat Jamal was transferred to Aurangabad in place of the petitioner. 3. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer order is required to be set aside on the ground that it is malafide, it is passed in mid-term of the academic year, and no administrative ground is available with the Management. The transfer order is against Rule 41(2) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. The policy of the State Government, in respect of having couple arrangement, is not followed. The husband of the petitioner is being harassed by issuing several 3 notices by the Management and ultimately, it is submitted that the petitioner is ready to work alongwith her husband, at any place. 4. The learned Counsel for the Management refutes the allegations of malafides. It is submitted that the petitioner is working in the Management since 1999. She is regular employee and drawing salary. It was submitted by the Counsel that the Education Officer had approved the impugned transfer order. The petition is required to be rejected for non joinder of necessary party i.e. Smt. Nusarat Jamal, who is working at Aurangabad since her transfer. The Counsel further submits that the said transfer is not mid-term transfer but it is in the second term of the academic year. The allegations of the illegal demands have been denied. He submitted that the couple arrangement as envisaged under Government Resolution is not applicable to the employees under M.E.P.S. Act and Rules. The distance between Aurangabad to Paithan is 50 Kms. and therefore, the transfer is not 4 inconvenient to the petitioner. In respect of school going children, the learned Counsel submits that the educational facilities are available at Paithan. 5. By an order dated 11-02-2008 this Court had granted ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (B) & (C) whereby implementation of the transfer order was stayed and the Management was directed to continue the petitioner in the school at Aurangabad. Admittedly, the petitioner is continued under the orders of this Court, in the school at Aurangabad, run by the same Management. 6. In the facts of the case, we do not find issue of allegations of malafides, illegal demand requires to be gone into, in view of the dispute raised by the petitioner. Prima facie, we do not find that the Government policy of couple arrangement is part of the provisions of M.E.P.S. Act and Rules. Under the said Act and Rules, the Management runs more than one school. The 5 Management has right to transfer employee from one school to another school subject to the said law. 7. In the facts of the case, we find that the petitioner remained in the school at Aurangabad under the orders of this Court and it is now more than three years, the petitioner worked under ad interim relief granted by this Court. The Counsel for the Management, on instructions, states that due to efflux of time, now the Management does not press for operation of the transfer order which was impugned in this petition. Counsel submits that the Management would take a fresh decision taking into consideration the administrative reasons and provisions of M.E.P.S. Act and Rules. 8. Due efflux of time and the facts and circumstances as narrated above, we accept the statement of the Management in respect of not pressing the order of transfer. 6 9. The Management is entitled to take fresh decision in the facts of the case and keeping in view administrative requirements, if any. The petitioner, if desires, may file a representation with the Management. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. 10. In view of the final disposal of the writ petition, nothing survives for consideration in the Civil Application. Civil Application is disposed of. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] SUT/JUL10/wp6866.07